GURU TEG BAHADUR METAL WORKS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LD . Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is a small tax payer under category of providing of repair and maintenance service. It has also opted registration from 7.12.04. Law relating to levy of Service Tax on repair and maintenance came into force on 1.7.03 vide Notification No. 07/2003 -ST dated 20.6.2003. He submits that the tax liability relating to the period 1.7.03 to 9.9.04 was discharged vide TR -6 challans No. 09 dated 29.12.06. When law was in infancy stage, department and obtained registration, however, service tax has been collected by the Appellant, they were not aware whether the tax relating to the period 1.7.03 to 9.4.04 shall be payable. When the Appellant came to know that the past liability has accrued and is required to be discharged, they have discharged the same on 29.12.06. Therefore a lenient view may be taken invoking Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 to waive penalty of Rs. 33,484/ - imposed under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He further prays that the penalty of Rs. 1000/ - imposed under Section 77 may also be waived, otherwise, the innocent tax payer, shall be suffer.

(2.) LD . DR submits that although the Appellant sought registration w.e.f. 7.12.04 they discharged tax liability two years thereafter. For such default, they have to suffer penalty as well as interest. Added to this, for not filing a return, levy of penalty of Rs. 1000/ - is justified.

(3.) IT appears that the Appellant has voluntarily sought registration in the registration camps organised by the department. This clearly shows the law abiding nature of the Appellant. The Appellant has also discharged its liability after registration, although, after two years. But perusal of record does not show whether any tax was collected by the Appellant for the services provided. It was not ruled out by Revenue that the gross value received was not composed of tax component. Considering the conduct of the Appellant who does not appear to be a litigant, they deserve consideration. However as correctional measure it would be just and proper to confirm penalty of Rs. 1000/ - imposed on the Appellant under Section 77 of the Finance Act 1944 waiving penalty of Rs. 33,484/ - imposed under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1944. In the result, first appellate order gets modified to the above extend directing payment of interest for default period on the tax liability payable.