TRANSWORLD EXPRESS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is engaged in providing courier service and the service tax demand for the period from 1998 -1999 to 2001 -2002 has been confirmed against the appellant with interest as applicable and penalties have also been imposed under various Sections of Finance Act, 1994.

(2.) LEARNED Chartered Accountant on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no dispute about the liability of service tax. A show cause notice was issued on 11 -7 -2003 and before adjudication order was passed on 27 -4 -2007, the appellants had discharged the service tax liability along with interest in 2005 itself. He also submits that the service tax demand is Rs. 21,281/ - whereas the interest alone came to Rs. 21,909/ -. The appellant has a very small business and was functioning as an extended arm of M/s. Poonam Courier and he was also required to pay 50% of his revenue to M/s. Poonam Courier. He also submits that appellant was not maintaining any record whatsoever and he was able to get the details based on the records maintained by M/s Poonam Courier. He also submits that the fact that the total value of taxable service rendered during the period under consideration was only Rs. 4,33,424/ - which shows that the appellant has a very small business and considering the fact that even out of this, 50% revenue was going to M/s. Poonam Courier, the appellants case deserves consideration under Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994. Further, he also submits that the service tax was paid from his own resources since he had not collected the same at the time of providing service. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kamdhenu Air Services v. CCE, Jaipur as reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 317 (Tri -Del.) and in the case of Flyingman Air Courier Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur as reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 283 (Tri -Del.) = 2004 (170) E.L.T. 417 (Tribunal), in support of his contention that a liberal view may be taken as regards penalty.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned SDR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the appellant took more than 2 years to pay the service tax with interest after issue of show cause notice. He relied upon the decision of Honble High Court of Kerala in the case of Astt. Commr. of C.E. v. Krishna Poduval as reported in 2006 (1) S.T.R. 185 (Ker.), in support of his contention that penal Sections of Finance Act, 1994.