Decided on March 17,2015

C.C.E. Appellant


R. Periasami, Member (T) - (1.)REVENUE filed appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), wherein the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, was set aside and directed the lower authority for re -quantify the interest.
(2.)THE Ld. AR reiterates the grounds of appeal. None appears for the respondent. The short issue involved in the present case is that the adjudicating authority in the order demanded only the interest under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 for the delayed payment of service tax and imposed equal penalty for non -payment of interest. The appellate authority in the impugned order upheld the interest demanded and directed the lower authority to re -quantify the interest based on the actual date of receipt of service tax amount and number of days delay. He also set aside the penalty. Ld. AR places a copy of the letter dated 09.05.2014 from the O/o. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli. On perusal of the said letter I find that the Service Tax Range Superintendent vide letter dated 09.05.2014 has quantified the interest payable as Rs. 73,369/ - as per the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The relevant table is reproduced as under: - - JUDGEMENT_31_LAWS(CE)3_2015.htm
As seen from the above, the jurisdictional authority has worked out the actual number of days delayed for payment of service tax for each amount received from August, 2004 to December, 2004 and he has also worked out the number of days of delay which varies from 150 to 28 days and the total interest amount payable was quantified as Rs. 73,369/ -. Taking into the above reworking of the interest amount, there is no infirmity in the order of the appellate authority directing the lower authority to re -quantify the interest. I find that the amount re -quantified by the department is the correct interest amount payable for the delayed payment of service tax. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order directing the adjudicating authority to re -quantify the interest. Further, I do not find any valid ground put forth by the Revenue against dropping of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower appellate authority has waived the penalty taking into consideration of the fact that the respondent has already paid the service tax. Considering the interest amount itself is reduced from Rs. 1,33,004/ - to Rs. 73,369/ -, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order in so far as setting aside the penalty. Accordingly, revised interest amount of Rs. 73,369/ - worked out by the department as per the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld and waiver of penalty is upheld. Accordingly Revenue appeal is dismissed.

(Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.