9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve contravened the provisions of Section 68 read with Section 66 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) inasmuch as :- (i) 34,89,785/- on Rs. They failed to pay the Service Tax amounting to Rs. 6,97,95,700/- i.e. the value of taxable service provided during the period from January, 1995 to March, 1995. (ii) on They collected the Service Tax amounting to Rs. 34,89,785/- 6,97,95,700/- i.e. the value of taxable services provided during the period from January, 1995 to March, 1995 and failed to pay such tax to the credit of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 68 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. (iii) 10,46,935/- on The party appeared liable to pay the interest of Rs. del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the C.B.E.C. circulars have the binding effect on the departmental officers, they were within their right to assume that the department had also acceded to their subsequent requests for provisional assessment. They added that the assessment in their case was being made provisionally and had not been finalised for even a single quarter. They submitted that the issuance of SCN before finalisation of assessment was not sustainable in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment in the case of M/s. Serai Kella Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Patna, 1997 (91) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.). 4. The party referred to their letter dated 20-11-1996 and stated that during the first three quarters they were required to collect and pay Service Tax o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able by the Noticee Company. The learned Consultant was advised to submit broadsheet for the relevant period together with the demand raised by the Department and paid by the Noticee Company. The Consultant agreed to submit the same on 26-5-1998 i.e. on the next date of personal hearing. 8. Shri N. Marwah the learned Consultant, Shri R. Mohan, Asstt. General Manager and Shri K.K. Aggarwal, Asstt. Manager appeared on 26-5-1998. 9. The learned Consultant placed on record his final written submission dated 26-5-1998. He specifically drew my attention to the table under para 7 of his reply giving the schedule of payment of Service Tax from July, 1994 to March, 1995 which shows short payment of Rs. 23.72 lacs, which was subsequently paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Service Tax Rules, 1944, where an assessee is, for any reason, unable to correctly estimate on the date of deposit the actual amounts collected for any particular month or period, the assessee may make a request in writing to the Central Excise Officer (i.e. the Assistant Commissioner) to make a provisional assessment of the tax on the basis of the amount deposited and the Central Excise Officer may, on receipt of such request, order for provisional assessment. However, in this case, I find that no such order for provisional assessment was issued by the Assistant Commissioner for the period covered by the show cause notice i.e. January, 1995 to March, 1995. The party in their reply to the show cause notice has also admitted that no s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1994 and March-1995 stand finally assessed and the assessing officer may now deliver the copies of the same to the party. 12. I have also gone through the month-wise broad-sheet supplied by the party for the period July 1994 to March, 1995 and find that there was a shortfall of Rs. 23,72,862/- for the period July 1994 to March, 1995 which the party deposited vide TR-6 challan on 30-11-1995. I also observe that in the present circumstances, the issue of short payment of Service Tax as alleged in the notice remains only technical in nature because asking the party to apply for refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will only be a procedural formality because the amount of Service Tax due and Service Tax deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, I am inclined to take a lenient view and do not impose any penalty on the party for these delayed payments as reasonable cause has been shown by the party. My order in the case is, therefore, as under :- ORDER 14. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I do not impose penalty on M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi as envisaged in the Show Cause Notice for delay in paying the service tax for the services rendered during the period under dispute under the provisions of Section 80 of the Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. However, I confirm the demand to the extent of Rs. 3,92,600/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety two thousand and six hundred) only towards interest for the delayed payment of Service Tax under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
