JOE TRANSPORT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. Shri M.N. Bharathi, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the service tax amount has since been paid by the appellants partly before issue of the show -cause notice and partly before conclusion of the adjudication proceedings. He states that provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 should have been applied in the case of the appellants and no penalty should have been imposed. As regards interest on the delayed payment, learned Advocate undertakes to pay the same immediately. He also prays that in case penalty is held to be imposable, there is no case for imposition of penalty under Section 76 as well as under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 as the appellants had not paid the tax merely on the ground that the customers had not paid the tax to them and there was no suppression of the value of the taxable service.

(2.) HEARD Shri C. Rangaraju, learned SDR appearing for the department. He says that appellants had not paid the full amount of the tax and interest thereon before issue of show -cause notice and hence the benefit of Section 73(3) cannot be allowed in their case. He also states that imposition of penalty under Sections 76 & 78 is justified.

(3.) THE appeal is allowed in the above terms.