9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the Department has not been able to establish that there was a malafide intention of the appellant for evasion of tax and for late payment of tax. The delay has occurred because of change in the procedure of payment of tax and therefore we do not find any justification for imposing penalty - penalty set aside. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - ST/322/2006-DB - 20003/2017 - Dated:- 2-1-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri Raghavendra B Hanjer, Advocate For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner dated 22.08.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and to file returns in proper form along with the copies of TR-6 Challans as required under Section 70. In their letter dated 4.4.2001, the BSNL informed that they have received a letter from their Head Quarters on 12.12.2000 to the effect that service tax collected through Telephone Bills in various Secondary Switching Areas were to be paid by the Circle office to the DOT cell which directly operate on the Central Government Account. It was also informed that in compliance with the said order, payment in respect of service tax collected in the various SSAs in Trivandrum Circle was being made to DOT cell at prescribed intervals who in turn was promptly crediting the same to the Central Government Account 0044 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce issue raised in the show-cause notice was purely technical in nature but confirmed the demand of interest of ₹ 42,86,681/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty One only) calculated at the appropriate rate for the amount of tax paid belatedly under the provisions of Section 65 of the Finance Act 1994. Further the Commissioner imposed a penalty of ₹ 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) under the provisions of erstwhile Section 75A of the Finance Act for the delay caused in taking out registration under the provisions of Section 69 of the said Act. Further the learned Commissioner imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) under Section 77 of the Finance Act 1994 for the delay cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He also submitted that from January 2004 onwards the procedure was changed and the circle started remitting the tax directly. During the period up to December 2003 because of the new procedure adopted, there used to be some delay in payment of tax to the Government which was not intentional. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a) Principal G.M. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore-III 2006 (4) S.T.R. 211 (Tri.-Bang.) b) General Manager, Telecom Vs. CCE, Cochin 2006 (4) S.T.R. 521 (Tri.-Bang.) c) G.M. (Telecom), BSNL Vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2006 (3) S.T.R. 122 (Tri.-Del.) d) CCE, Mysore Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 2010 (20) S.T.R. 762 (Kar.) e) CCE, Jalandhar Vs. General Manager ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the particulars of tax first paid by BSNL to DOT cell and the final credit to Government by the DOT Cell, it is seen that certain delay has taken place on various occasions, i.e. the tax had been remitted to Government account subsequent to the prescribed due date. A detailed statement of payment of service tax by the assessee pertaining to the period from October 2000 to September 2003, first by BSNL to DOT Cell and later on by DOT Cell to Government is attached to this order as Annexure-I. Even though the tax due had been remitted to the Government, it is evidence that in many cases as can be seen from the remittance details shown in the annexure attached that the assessee had not adhered to the date stipulated for the purpose under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
