2006 (5) TMI 451 - AT - Service Tax

Summary

Issues: Appeal against penalty amount in a service tax case.

Analysis:

1. Issue: Appeal for setting aside the penalty amount.

The appellant submitted that the entire service tax, along with interest, was paid before the show-cause notice was issued. The appellant emphasized that the appeal was solely to challenge the penalty amount, not the service tax or interest. The appellant relied on various legal precedents, including a larger Bench decision and a High Court judgment. Following the precedent set by the larger Bench decision and the High Court judgment, the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The confirmation of the service tax and interest was not contested.

2. Judicial Precedents and Rulings:

The appellant cited multiple decisions to support their case, including:
- Commissioner of Central Excise v. Machino Montell (I.) Ltd.
- Commissioner of Central Excise v. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries
- Flyingman Air Courier Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise
- Tribunal's Order in the case of CCE v. Ester Security Concern
- CCE v. Top Detective & Security Services Pvt. Ltd.
- Nirma Architects and Valuers v. CCE
- Commissioner of Central Excise v. Johari Digital Health Care Ltd.

3. Decision:

The Tribunal, following the precedent of the larger Bench decision and the High Court judgment, set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, with the service tax and interest being confirmed as not contested. The appellant succeeded in their appeal solely focused on challenging the penalty amount, which was deemed unjustified based on the legal precedents cited.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely payment of service tax and interest, as well as the possibility of challenging penalties through legal avenues with the support of relevant judicial precedents.