TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted:- 16-8-2019 - M.S. SANKLECHA NITIN JAMDAR, JJ. Mr. Chirag Shetty a/w Ms. Ghagyashri Bhave I/b Economic Laws Practice for the appellant Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly a/w J.B. Mishra for the respondent P.C. 1. This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act r/w Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 challenges the order dated 16th November, 2016 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). 2. Mr. Shetty, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal presses following questions of law for our consideration : (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in not considering the decision of coordinate bench passed in Ceolric Services V. CCE 2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tested. However, without success, as the show-cause notice was confirmed and penalty is imposed. (b) On further appeal to the Tribunal, the appellant submitted that for the earlier period i.e. 2002-2004 the appellant had in identical circumstances recovered money from its customers and not deposited with the Revenue on account of financial crises. The Tribunal by its order dated 2nd September, 2016 relating to the period 2002 to 2004 took a lenient view and deleted the penalties. Thus, it was submitted that the same course should be followed in the present case. However, the Tribunal did not accept the same and held that the lenient view taken for purposes of not imposing a penalty could not be extended for the period under consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view taken by the Tribunal despite its conduct. It is not correct for the appellant to proceed that a lenient view gives it a license to misrepresent to its customers that the amounts are being collected for being handed over to the State and then keep it with itself. The submissions that as the taxes have been paid to State along with interest will in fact warrant no penalty is strange. The State is not in the business of banking / money lending. The submission that a part of the service tax was paid by the appellant before the investigation had commenced in these facts, would not warrant waiver of imposition of penalty. The benefit under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be granted only when the conduct is bona fide. In the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
