BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing both the sides, we find that one M/s. Gurmeet Singh & Company, Proprietary unit was providing services of Site Formation & Clearance, Excavation & Earthmoving & Demolition services to M/s. Northern Coalfields Ltd. and were discharging their service tax liability, accordingly. With effect from 1 -4 -2008 the said proprietary unit was taken over by M/s. GSCO Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, the old company applied to M/s. Northern Coalfield Ltd. for change in the name of agreement. As the said request was taking lime at the end of M/s. Northern Coalfields Ltd., the appellant intimated their jurisdictional Central Excise Officers indicating that though they have surrendered their old service tax registration and has obtained new service tax registration in the name of M/s. GSCO Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., they are unable to deposit the service tax liability on account of non -payment of the same by M/s. Northern Coalfield in the name of the new company. The letter dated 6 -9 -2008 also indicate to deposit the entire service tax by 30 -9 -2008 and praying that in such a scenario no interest liability should be fastened against them as also no penalty should be imposed. In the above backdrop the service tax of Rs. 29,08,734/ - was deposited along with interest between October 2008 and January, 2009. Subsequently, show cause notices dated 12 -10 -2009 and 5 -10 -2009 were issued for imposition of penalties, resulting in passing of the present impugned orders, imposing penalties under Section 76 of the Finance Act.

(2.) LD . Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that it is not a case of any mala fide so as to attract the penal provisions. The service tax liability was admitted by the appellant and due intimation was given to the Revenue as regards non -deposit of the same on account of change in the name of the present assessee in the agreement entered into with M/s. Northern Coalfields. No objection was however taken by the Revenue to said intimations. The appellant had already deposited the due service tax liability along with interest which is sufficiently penal in character and the entire circumstances did not call for a separate imposition of penalty. After hearing ld. DR we agree with the ld. Advocate. We have seen the correspondence exchanged between the appellant and the Revenue. Its stands very clearly stated by the appellant in their various communications addressed to the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers that the service tax is not being deposited because of the delay occurring for name change in the agreement, the duty liability was accepted by the appellant and was actually deposited along with interest even before the issuance of show cause notice. In such scenario, we find no justification for imposition of penalty on the assessee in terms of the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, while confirming the duty and interest as not contested, we set aside the penalty imposed upon the appellant and allow the appeal with consequential relief to him.