9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1342 - AT - Service TaxService of notice - Appellant pleaded that they have never received two communications said to have been sent by the jurisdictional officer calling for details - Penalty u/s 77(1)(c) of Finance Act 1994 - Held that - We have specifically ascertained from the ld. AR about the existence of evidence for service of the said letters on the appellant. No such evidence is available on record - In the absence of evidence of service of letters calling for such details it is not proper to presume such delivery of letters and proceed with penal action - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Liability for penalty under Section 77(1)(c) of Finance Act, 1994.
In the present appeal, the issue revolved around the liability of the appellant for penalty under Section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994, concerning the failure to furnish information as directed by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Service Tax. The appellant was issued a show cause notice proposing a penalty for their failure to produce the required information. The Original Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant for the continuation of the failure to provide the information. The appellant argued that they had not received the letters dated 19-12-2008 and 13-2-2009, which called for the details, as they were sent via speed post, which was not an approved method of communication during that time. The appellant contended that they had submitted the requisite information to the Range Officer through their letter dated 29-5-2009, as admitted in the original order. The appellant also cited a decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court to support their argument that sending an order by speed post did not comply with legal provisions. Upon hearing both parties and examining the appeal records, it was noted that the appellant was penalized for failing to provide the details called for in the letters. However, there was no evidence available to confirm the service of the letters on the appellant. In the absence of such evidence, it was deemed improper to presume the delivery of the letters and proceed with penal action. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The order was pronounced on 25-4-2017 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, with the decision delivered by Member (T) B. Ravichandran.
|
