1.   Bestilo Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. EX., Chandigarh-II (CESTAT, New Delhi), Final Order No. 713/2011-SM(BR)(PB), dated 30-9-2011 in Appeal No. ST/787/2011-SM(BR) (In Favour of Assessee)

Issue:

The riders (statement)  provided by Notification No. 34/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004 in the matter of levy of service tax relating to GTA service were in confusion. While one rider is that if the gross amount charged against consignments transported in a goods carrier does not exceed Rs. 1500/- there is liability under Finance Act, 1994, the other rider is, if gross amount charged on an individual consignment transported in a goods carrier does not exceed Rs. 750/- there shall be liability. The appellant was under a bona fide belief that individual consignment was basis for liability of the appellant.

Held:

Although the riders are independent in nature, but very difficult to understand by a common man. So also noticing no contumacious conduct of the appellant discovered by the department, the appellant cannot be asked to suffer penalty. All these observations require the appeal to be allowed. Therefore, dispensing with pre-deposit, appeal is also allowed. Accordingly, both stay application and appeal are allowed.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.   Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Vs. Master Kleen (Karnataka HC) C.E.A. No. 2 of 2010, decided on 8-9-2011 (In Favour of Assessee)

Held:

The material on record discloses that the assessee on being pointed out by the authorities for not paying the service tax, has paid the service tax with interest even before the issue of show cause notice. Sub-section (3) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, categorically states that if tax and interest is paid and the same is informed to the authorities, then the authorities shall not serve any notice calling upon the authorities to pay penalty. It is unfortunate that inspite of statutory provisions, the authorities have issued a show cause notice claiming penalty. So tax and interest was paid before issue of show cause notice. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside those orders. As the said order is strictly in accordance with law we do not find any legal infirmity that calls for interference. Therefore this appeal is dismissed.

(Please click here for judgment)

Key of Success :