9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (3) TMI 250 - AT - Service TaxDelay in the payment of Service Tax by Telecom Department - period of dispute April 1999 to September 2000 i.e., prior to incorporation of BSNL - revenue issued a SCN for recovery of interest on the delayed payments - original authority confirmed the demand against BSNL - held that the Telecom Department of the Central Government had no liability to pay any interest on account of delay in the crediting of Service Tax into the relevant account - impugned order is set aside appeal allowed
Issues:
Delay in payment of Service Tax by Telecom Department leading to interest recovery against BSNL, applicability of interest payment post-incorporation of BSNL, comparison with similar cases leading to exoneration from interest payment. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the delayed payment of Service Tax by the Telecom Department, which led to a demand for interest against BSNL for the period from April 1999 to September 2000. BSNL, incorporated on 1-11-2000, faced a demand confirmed by the original authority and marginally reduced by the first appellate authority. The appellant, the General Manager of BSNL, challenged this demand, claiming exoneration based on similar cases. The appellant relied on precedents where they were exonerated from interest payment in similar circumstances. The Tribunal referenced cases involving the delay in payment of Service Tax prior to BSNL's incorporation, where it was held that the Telecom Department of the Central Government had no liability to pay interest. Citing these precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal, after considering the records and arguments from both sides, found merit in the appellant's claim for exoneration based on precedents where similar situations led to a favorable judgment. By applying the principles established in previous cases, the Tribunal decided in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for interest on delayed Service Tax payments during the specified period.
|
