AIRTIME ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these three appeals, the issue is common. All the three appellants were covered under Business Auxiliary Services. They were acting as agents for M/s. Bharati Mobile Ltd. The Government had issued an Amnesty Scheme to enable them to discharge the Service Tax along with interest. The benefit of the Amnesty Scheme was availed by the appellants and they have paid the Service Tax along with interest. Therefore, they submit that they are entitled for waiver of penalty in the matter which, the authorities below have not given. In this connection, the learned Counsel relies on the following rulings where the benefit of Amnesty Scheme has been given and penalty has been set aside. (i) New Courier & Cargo v. CCE & C, Nasik (sic) [Ispat Metallics (I) Ltd.] = 2007 (7) S.T.R. 69 (Tri. -Mumbai) = 2008 (222) E.L.T. 574 (Commr. Appl.) (ii) CCE, Bhopal v. Bharat Security Services & Workers Cont. - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 703 (Tri. -Del.) = 2005 (188) E.L.T. 454 (T). (iii) Lake City Service Centre v. CCE, Jaipur - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 531 (Tri. -Del.) (iv) CCE, Allahabad v. Chandan Chemicals - 2007 (7) S.T.R. 578 (Tri. -Del.)

(2.) THE learned SDR submits that the aspect pertaining to interest is required to be checked by the lower authorities as to whether they had deposited or not, as she does not have information pertaining to the deposit of interest.

(3.) THE learned Counsel submits that interest has been paid in all the cases and he has enclosed the details of payments in each of the appeal papers.