Whether ignorance of law can be a reasonable cause for allowing benefit of waiving penalties under Section 80?

PJ/Case law/2013-14/1906

Case:- COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUSMUNIRUDDIN

Citation:- 2013 (31) S.T.R. 136 (All.)

Brief facts:- This appeal is a Central Excise Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging the order dated 1-8-2008 [2009 (14) S.T.R. 104 (Tri.-Del.)), passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal").Assessee, an individual cab owner, provided cab services to the M/s. B.S.N.L. a public sector undertaking and IFFCO under the contract. An order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise confirming the demand of service tax as well as the penalty for non-payment of service tax. A penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 was also imposed.The appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellate authority recorded a finding that there was no main fide intention in not depositing the service tax in time. The aforesaid finding was returned that the assessee was ignorant about the provisions of the Service Tax and the company did not inform the assessee about the service tax leviable on the amount paid to the appellants for the services of under Rent-a-Cab scheme. The department filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which has been dismissed by the order under appeal.

Appellant’s contention:- The revenue department pleaded for imposition of penalties for non-payment of service tax by the assessee.

Reasoning of Judgment:- After hearing the submissions, the High Court stated that The Tribunal has considered the submissions raised by the Revenue that the ignorance of law is of no excuse. The Tribunal returned the following finding that the Revenue in the appeal contended that ignorance of law is of no excuse. However, it is not disputed by the Revenue that there was no malafideintention in depositing the tax in time by the respondent. He also find that both the respondents are individual owners of vehicles and providing the vehicles to M/s. BSNL Ltd., a Public Sector undertaking and IFFCO under the contract. So, the case laws cited by the learned DR are not applicable in the present case.The Tribunal has given cogent reasons for not interfering with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The finding having been returned that there was no malafide intention in depositing the tax in time, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises for decision in this appeal. Thus,the appeal is dismissed and the matter is concluded on the finding of fact.

Decision:- Appeal dismissed.

Comment:- The crux of this case is that when there is bonafide belief and no malafide intention in non-payment of service tax, the benefit of section 80 regarding waiver of penalty is admissible.

Comments

PJ/Case law/2013-14/1906

Post a Comment

Query