M\/s. Sky Automobiles Versus Commissioner of CGST, BBSR
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 74 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 29-8-2018
Appeal No. ST\/76237\/2018 – FO\/76610\/2018
Service Tax
Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Ravi Raghavan, Advocate & Shri Harsh Shukla, CA for the Appellant (s)
\nShri S. Mukhopahdyay, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent (s)
\nORDER
\nPer Shri P.K. Choudhary
\nBriefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of Authorized Dealer of Maruti Suzuki Four Wheeler and also providing services of authorized service station and is registered with the service tax under category of 'Authorized Service Station (Servicing of Motor Vehicles)' and 'Business Auxiliary Service'. Pursuance to the Department audit, an audit observation was issued demanding service tax on various issues such as service tax on DSE incentive, Registration Fee, Cancellation Charges and Legal Fee paid to advocate. In reply t<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ssuance of the show cause notice by the department and the facts of payment has been acknowledged in the show cause notice itself and accordingly the proceedings should have been completed on payment of tax amount alongwith interest under provision of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. He strongly argued that when the amount stood paid alongwith interest much before the issuance of the show cause notice, no proceedings could have been initiated. In support of his submission he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.Ramachandran vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [2016(46) STR 866]. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n der sub-section (1) in respect of such service tax, and inform the Central Excise Officer of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the amount so paid : = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Sky Automobiles Versus Commissioner of CGST, BBSRService Tax2018 (12) TMI 74 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMICESTAT KOLKATA – ATDated:- 29-8-2018Appeal No. ST\/76237\/2018 – FO\/76610\/2018Service TaxShri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Ravi Raghavan, Advocate & Shri Harsh Shukla, CA for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Mukhopahdyay, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. … Continue reading “M\/s. Sky Automobiles Versus Commissioner of CGST, BBSR”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15316","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15316","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15316"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15316\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15316"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15316"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Ld. DR reiterates the orders of the lower authorities.
\n4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
\n5. I find that the issue involved in the appeal relates to waiver of penalty under Section 77 & 78 invoking Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. I find that the appellant had paid the service tax and interest before issuance of show cause notice. I also observed th<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n…. …..
\n….. …..”
\nI also find that an explanation was inserted to Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 which is reproduced below :
\n“Explanation 2. – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no penalty under any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be imposed in respect of payment of service tax under this sub-section and interest thereon.”
\n6. In the case of Tamil Nadu Small Inds. Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai – 2009 (234) E.L.T. 413, it was held that where an amendment has been introduced to clarify the intention of a notification, the said amendment shall be retrospective in nature. Applying the analogy to the facts of the present case, I am of the view that the <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n