w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Construma Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai - IV

Company & Directors' Information:- CONSTRUMA CONSULTANCY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140MH1992PTC067382

    APPEAL NO: ST/23/2004 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: PD/245/M-IV/2003 dated 28/11/2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai - VI.)

    Decided On, 09 June 2010

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai


    Shri R.G. Sheth, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Manish Mohan, Authorised Representative (SDR) for the respondent.

Judgment Text

Per: D.N. Panda, Member (Judicial)

1. A fair submission has been made in Bar by the learned counsel that the appellant would not like to litigate the matter further. In view of the infancy stage of law there was series of confusion about the service tax liability which resulted in default in payment of dues unintentionally. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant would not prefer to litigate the matter further and confusion of law itself is a good ground to consider concession in penalty leniently for the above reasonable ground.

2. Learned DR supports the order of the authorities below and submits that when the legislation enacted the provision, it was well known that no concession of penalty should be granted.

3. On hearing both sides and after examining the records as well as appreciating that the appellant does not want to litigate the matter further and also the proceedings throws light that the proceeding was initiated at the earliest stage of the inception of law, it would be proper to waive the penalty that has been imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 in the case. We also notice that the legislature in due course of time have conveyed lenient approach towards penalties under Sections 76 and 78 without cumulative penalisation.

4. Accordingly, the appellant gets the limited relief of waiver of penalty imposed on it

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

under Sections 76 and 78 while the penalty imposed under Section 77 is confirmed along with service tax and interest demands confirmed. Appeal is partly allowed.