9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012 to June, 2012. 2. Shri Vipul Khandar, (C.A) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the appellant has paid the entire service tax involved in the relevant ST-3 returns which were filed on 01.02.2013 and 06.02.2013. That the reasons for late filing were as follows:- (a) Initially appellant were not aware regarding the provision has been changed in respect of for the filing of ST-3 return, whereby the condition for the mandatory E-filing ST-3 return. On the date of filing 25th due to virus in computer system & deletion of accounting records appellant were unable to e file return on line. (b) Due to absenteeism of our account people, disturbance in system and also user name and password is blocked on that date, acesadmin@icesga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period October, 2011 to March, 2011 and April, 2012 to June, 2012 were filed on 01.02.2013 and 06.02.2013 respectively. Service tax for the period October, 2011 to March, 2012 was already paid by the appellant which was approximately Rs. 1400/- for the period April, 2012 to June, 2012 as no services were provided. Therefore, service for the latter period tax liability was NIL. So far as, imposition of late fees where the service tax payable was nil, Kolkata Bench of CESTAT in the case of Amrapali Barter Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata has held as follows:- Heard both sides and perused the records. Undisputedly, the appellant were registered with the Service Tax Department for providing taxable services. It is also not in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad. Further, it is observed that this order was passed by the Bench, when there was a demand of service payment and same was also paid before the issue of Show Cause Notice alongwith interest and it was held that as per CBEC Circular No. dated 3.10.2007 no penalty need to be imposed under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In the present proceedings, it is not case of demand of service tax which was paid by the appellant before the issue of Show Cause Notice. Therefore, appellant was required to pay the late fees under Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1994. However looking to the service tax involved during the period October, 2011 to March, 2012 the late fee imposed upon the appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
