9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A/S.Tax/68/2016. They initially admitted a Service Tax liability of Rs. 1,04,92,488/- and interest of Rs. 48,23,420/- as against the demanded amount of Rs. 2,20,33,977/-. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore IV Commissionerate, under whose jurisdiction the Applicant was registered, submitted comments on the application on 25-10-2016. The case was initially heard on 11-11-2016. Additional submissions were also made by the Applicant on 25-11-2016 and by the jurisdictional Commissioner on 18-1-2017. Consequent to re-constitution of the Bench, the case was again heard on 19-1-2017. On hearing both the parties, the Bench passed an Order, bearing No. 5/2017-ST, dated 23-2-2017. The Additional Service Tax liability was settled at Rs. 1,42,01,307/-. The Applicant, having paid Rs. 1,04,92,488/- earlier, was ordered to pay the balance Service Tax amount of Rs. 37,08,819/-. The Applicant was also directed to work out the interest liability to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Commissioner after adjusting the interest of Rs. 48,23,420/- paid earlier, and required to pay the balance of interest. Further the Bench imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the Applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts ordered in the order passed by the Settlement Commission and did not take up the matter. The communication was also endorsed to the jurisdictional Commissioner and the DGCEI, Bangalore, the agency which investigated the case, which culminated in the issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 16-10-2012. 1.5 Subsequently, the Applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by way of a Writ Petition, bearing No. 4847/2018 (T-RES) [2018 (361) E.L.T. 252 (Kar.)] to quash the letter O.C. No. 91/2017, dated 25-9-2017 issued by the Superintendent of Central Taxes, Range B, North Division 7, Division 7, North Commissionerate, Bangalore, and other communications dated 12-12-2017, 17-1-2018 and 24-1-2018 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, Bangalore, ND 7, North GST Division VII, Bangalore. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, vide order dated 1-2-2018, ordered that the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner be placed before the Settlement Commission and the Commission, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall pass appropriate orders. Further, the Court also ordered that the petitioner shall appear before the Settleme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral visits to the office of DGCEI to get the confirmation as detailed in the affidavit. Finally, they received an oral confirmation only on 3-4-2017 from DGCEI about the correct computation of interest to be paid, and immediately upon receiving the confirmation, the applicant paid the interest on 4-4-2017. Accordingly, the period between 14-3-2017 and 3-4-2017 should not be taken into account for the purpose of computing the 30 days period for compliance as provided in the Statute. 2.5 When the Bench asked the consultant specifically to make submissions with regard to Rule 10 of the Settlement Commission's Rules, on which a mention was made in the Hon'ble High Court's Order dated 1-2-2018, he submitted that he needs some time to look into this aspect and requested for a 10 days' time to submit his written submissions and he also promised to submit copies of citation relied upon by him. Bench directed the consultant to submit his report by 28th Feb., 2018 with a copy to the Revenue. 2.6 The Learned Representative of Revenue submitted that the speed post acknowledgement shows the date of receipt of Settlement Commission's order by the applicant as 1-3-2017, and the depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MST Katiji [1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.)], which held that when substantial justice and technical considerations were pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred for other side could not claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberated delay. * They claimed that statutory provisions which confer a right and provide a remedy of Settlement should be given a liberal construction. In their case, the actions to comply with the order of the Commission were evident and beyond doubt, given the fact that they had discharged the quantified amount within 8 days of its receipt (from 6-3-2017 to 14-3-2017) or 13 days (from 1-3-2017 to 14-3-2017). The interest computation was required to be confirmed by Revenue, which was done on 3-4-2017. Revenue could not demand delay of 3 days, when it took 20 days to confirm the interest and they could not be penalized for the inaction of the Revenue. The purported delay was not consequent to the action of the Applicant but consequent to inaction on the part of Revenue. Revenue should be considered as equally interested in settlement of dispute as the Applicant and their action made it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d hold that they had done everything possible to comply to the order of the Settlement Commission and they could not be held liable for recovery of immunities granted for alleged delay, which was not consequent to the actions of the Applicant, but the inaction of the Revenue. Decision and findings of the Bench : 4.1 This is an issue where the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had directed the Commission to re-consider the Miscellaneous Application dated 11-10-2017 filed by the Applicant for condonation of delay of 4 days in payment of the dues. 4.2 On perusing the written and oral submissions made by the Applicant and the department, the Bench is of the view that the only issue that needs to be decided is whether the Applicant had complied with the condition of making the payment of dues ordered in the Final Order No. 5/2017-S.T., dated 23-2-2017 within 30 days of the receipt of order. It is an admitted position that the balance of Service Tax of Rs. 37,08,819/- and the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- ordered as payable in the above cited Final Order was paid by the Applicant on 14-3-2017 and the interest liability of Rs. 64,98,367/- on 4-4-2017. The contention of the departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s follows, "Further to our discussion today, please find attached the interest computation, request you to review the same and confirm if this is good to go ahead for making the payment", for confirming the interest liability computed; that he visited the Office of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Bangalore on 3rd April, 2017, and met Shri Mahesh to discuss and finalise the interest liability to be discharged and that Shri Mahesh confirmed the interest liability on the said date, subject to changes discussed. This was communicated to the Applicant by their employee, Shri Harshit Kumar Nahar, through e-mail on 3-4-2017, which reads as follows : "Further to e-mail below, the amount is not matching. Please provide month-wise break-up for the following : 1. Booking Surcharge - 2007-08 - Rs. 4,33,92,244 2. Booking Surcharge - 2008-09 - Rs. 17,85,967 3. Package Tour - 2007-08 - Rs. 7,05,647 4. Package Tour - 2008-09 - Rs. 64,31,869 5. Package Tour - 2009-10 - Rs. 1,13,97,650 6.&n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
