CHANDAN ELECTRICALS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LD . Counsel Shri Harvinder Singh submits that as against Adjudication raising Service Tax demand of Rs. 2,38,739 and penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Appellant was before ld. Commissioner (Appeals). That Appellate Authority by an order dated 16 -1 -2009 held that the appellant shall not be liable to Service Tax under the category of Maintenance and Repair Service prior to 16 -6 -2005. But he was of the view that Service Tax liability arising after 16 -6 -2005 shall be liable to Service Tax followed by equal amount of penalty. But ld. Counsel without disputing the Service Tax liability determined by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) draws attention to page 48 of the Appeal folder dealing submission of the appellant before ld. first Appellate Authority. Relying on that document, he submits that out of the total receipt of Rs. 23,57,478, prior period liability receipt was of Rs. 78,365 and material cost of Rs. 17,09,335 if deducted, the taxable value of service comes to Rs. 1,69,778 and Service Tax thereon comes to Rs. 17,318. If at all there shall be penalty, that shall be confined to Rs. 17,318.

(2.) THE penalty imposed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of his order in para 11 was on the ground that the appellant was not a defaulter and not also had wilfully evaded revenue. But because the appellant had provided Repair and Maintenance Service to National Fertilizer Ltd., its liability could be determined by Revenue while conducting Audit of that concern. But the appellant having come to know that there shall be Service Tax liability it has forthwith sought registration under the Finance Act, 1994. He prays leniency for waiver of penalty even imposed by ld. Commissioner invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. According to ld. Counsel, except for the above reasons, no mala fides of the appellant comes out.

(3.) HEARD both sides and perused the record.