GUJARAT UNIVERSITY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Gujarat University, Ahmedabad against the order in Appeal No. 26/2006(STC)AV/Commr.(A -IV)Ahd. dated November 16, 2006. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in providing services of mandap keeper services, without obtaining service tax registration and without payment of service tax for the period October 1999 to August 2004. It was the view of the Department that the appellant is having open lands which were let out for social, business or official functions against consideration and the appellant had received an amount for Rs. 37,05,002 from various parties for use of these open lands for the said functions. On being pointed by the Department, the appellant paid Rs. 2,32,680 towards the service tax liability on October 11, 2004. A show -cause notice was issued to the appellant on November 5, 2004 demanding service tax, interest and proposing penalties. The said show -cause notice was confirmed by the original authority on May 31, 2006 in which the service tax amount already paid was appropriated against the service tax liability, interest and penalties were imposed under sections 75, 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order remanded the matter with regard to quantification of penalty under sections 76 and 77 to the original authority and reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000 under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant challenged the impugned order in this Tribunal with regard to interest and penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

(2.) THE appellant is not represented and has requested to decide the matter on merits on the basis of their submissions made in the appeal.

(3.) ON going through the case records, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has already remanded the matter with regard to the imposition of penalties under sections 76 and 77 to the original authority for quantification purpose. The appellant has not challenged this part of the order in appeal. As regards the imposition of penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, we find no reason to reduce the same as the appellant has failed to deposit the interest amount along with service tax before the issue of show cause notice or within the time -limit prescribed under the Act. In such a case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly, we uphold the same and reject the appeal. Appeal is rejected.