9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 389 - AT - Service TaxOption to pay 25% towards penalty, interest and service tax revenue appeal that option to be given by the original adjudicating authority and not at the appellate stage Held that - As decided in CCE, AHMEDABAD Versus AKASH FASHION PRINTS PVT LTD. 2009 (1) TMI 113 (HC) that the option to pay 25% towards penalty can be extended at the appellate stage also if the same has not been extended in the order-in-original - since the order-in-original has not extended the option to pay penalty, interest and service tax within thirty days from the date of the order no reason to interfere with the impugned order - against revenue.
Issues: Revenue's appeal against the option given to appellants to pay 25% of duty/tax demanded towards penalty at the appellate stage.
Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, delivered by Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, consolidates multiple appeals with a common issue. The crux of the matter revolves around the option provided in the impugned order for appellants to pay 25% of duty/tax demanded towards penalty along with service tax, duty, and interest within thirty days of receiving the order. The Revenue contests this option, arguing that it should only be granted by the original adjudicating authority and not at the appellate stage. During the proceedings, the respondents were absent, and the arguments put forth by the Revenue were reiterated by the ld. A.R. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, referred to precedent to support its decision. It cited the case of M/s. Swati Chemicals Industries & Others 2009 (94) RLT 684 (CESTAT) and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of M/s. Akash Fashion Prints Pvt. Limited 2009 (93) RLT 471 (Guj.). These cases established that the option to pay 25% towards penalty could be extended at the appellate stage if not provided in the original order-in-original. Given the legal precedents and the absence of the option in the original orders, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected, and cross objections by the parties were disposed of. The judgment, pronounced by Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, upholds the decision to allow the appellants to pay 25% of the duty/tax demanded towards penalty at the appellate stage, in line with established legal principles and precedents.
|
