SITAL SUBHACHANDRA SHAH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER admitting the appeal and allowing the stay petition, I proceed to decide the appeal itself, inasmuch as the issue lies in a narrow compass.

(2.) THE Assistant Commissioner, vide his impugned order confirmed the amount of Service Tax of Rs. 8,734/ - against the appellants for the period October 1998 to March 2004 along with confirmation of interest of Rs. 4,307/ -. He also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 500/ - under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 and of Rs. 1,000/ - in terms of Section 77 of the said Act. On appeal against the above order, the Commissioner (Appeals) enhanced the penalty to amount of Service. Tax i.e. to Rs. 8,734/ -. Hence, the appeal.

(3.) AFTER hearing the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants and the Ld. DR for the revenue, I find that the appellants have undisputedly paid the amount in question along with interest amount and penalty imposed upon by the Assistant Commissioner. They have also got themselves registered with the authorities. Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bhopal v. Bharat Security Services and Worker's Cont, vide its order No. A/1087 -1092/2005 -1V (PB), has held that where service tax provider has registered himself and paid Service Tax along with interest prior to 30 -10 -2004, he is not liable to any penally under the Extra Ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme. Inasmuch as the appellants have admittedly paid the tax made and have themselves got registered prior to 31 -10 -2004, 1 find no justification for enhancement of penalty imposed upon them. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, order -in -original is restored and appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay petition also gets disposed of.