2014 (9) TMI 644 - CGOVT - Service Tax

Revision applicable before the Government of India - Levy of penalty u/s 77 for delayed submission of ST-3 return in violation of Section 70 - Held that - Government observes that the issue involved in impugned case is of delayed submission of ST-3 return in violation of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. Government finds that this issue does not fall in the category of cases mentioned in proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and hence revision application is filed beyond jurisdiction and not maintainable under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant is required to file appeal before Hon ble CESTAT. - application rejected.

Summary

Issues: Delayed submission of ST-3 return in violation of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The case involves a revision application filed by M/s. State Bank of India against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The applicant, registered under the category of 'Banking and Financial Service', was found to have started providing taxable service before applying for registration with a significant delay. The Department issued a show cause notice proposing a penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, for the delayed submission of ST-3 return. The lower authority imposed a penalty of &8377;44,400, which was challenged by the applicant in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) but was rejected. Subsequently, the applicant filed an appeal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994.

The Government, after reviewing the case records, submissions, and orders, noted that the issue at hand pertained to the delayed submission of the ST-3 return, a violation of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. It was observed that this issue did not fall under the cases mentioned in the proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the revision application was deemed to be beyond jurisdiction and not maintainable under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Government directed that the applicant should file an appeal before the Hon'ble CESTAT, and consequently dismissed the revision application as not maintainable. The final order stated that the revision application stood dismissed, thus concluding the matter.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the specific issue of the delayed submission of the ST-3 return by the applicant, leading to the imposition of a penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Government's decision to dismiss the revision application highlighted the lack of jurisdiction under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and directed the applicant to pursue the matter through an appeal before the appropriate authority.