SIDDHI MOTORS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants against the penalty of Rs. 16,136/ - imposed on them under Section 76 and Rs. 1000/ - imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants are liable to pay service tax for business auxiliary service and there was a delay in payment of service tax during the period from April, 2006 to January, 2007 and hence penalty has been imposed under Section 76 & 77. The appellants have discharged their liability of service tax with interest and there is no dispute.

(2.) NO one has appeared on behalf of the appellants. Ld. DR submits that penalty was imposed for delayed payment of service tax and a lenient view could not be taken since the delay had occurred because of negligence on the part of the appellant, who did not obtain the details of deductions from the parent company in time even though they had obtained the details of TDS. He justifies the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that the appellants could have received the data relating to the deductions from the commission also at the time of getting the details of TDS and there is no proper justification for the delay in receiving the details by more than 6 months.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the ld. DR and also the points mentioned by the appellants in their appeal memorandum. The appellants have made the same submissions before me which were made before the Commissioner (Appeals) also. Their submission is that they could not get details of deductions from the parent company relating to non -fulfilment of target and other charges and hence the delay occurred in payment of service tax and the delay was not intentional. However as pointed out by the ld. DR and by the Commissioner (Appeals), from the records it is found that appellants could get the details of TDS sufficiently in advance and therefore the explanation relating to other deductions does not appear to be valid. I also find that the decisions of the Tribunal in CCE, Vapi v. Ajay Sales Agencies [2009 (13) S.T.R. 40 (Tri. -Ahmd)] and in CCE, Madurai v. Bhakya Beauty Parlour [2008 (12) S.T.R. 44 (Tri. -Chennai)] relied upon by the DR relevant to the present facts of the case. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Before parting, it has to be mentioned that this order is being passed in the absence of the appellants in view of the fact that the appellants had not appeared before this Tribunal on 13 -1 -2009, 27 -3 -2009 and also today in spite of issue of notice.