STA No.12 of 2009 (O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH STA No.12 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Order: 9.9.2009 Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Jalandhar ...Appellant Versus M/s ESS ESS KAY Engg Co. Ltd ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel, Government of India (Indirect Taxes) for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR,J The instant appeal filed under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 (for brevity “Finance Act”)is directed against order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity “the Tribunal”). The Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) setting aside the penalty imposed on the respondent-dealer in pursuance of Section 77 of the Finance Act. The Commissioner (Appeal) has found that there was a reasonable cause for the failure to deposit the amount of service tax within the time prescribed. It has come on record that the dealer was availing the services of goods transport operators and he was liable to pay service tax for the period from 16.11.1997 to 2.6.1998. The amount was payable by 13.11.2003. However, dealer could pay the amount of service tax along with interest only on 29.10.2004. Accordingly, the STA No.12 of 2009 (O&M) #2# Assistant Commissioner in its order-in-original imposed penalty by rejecting the plea that there was a reasonable cause for the delay. However, the Commissioner (Appeal) partly allowed the appeal of assessee filed against the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, whereby period of payment of interest was modified and order of penalty was set aside by accepting the plea that there was reasonable cause. He has accepted the view that the dealer did not deposit the service tax earlier under the impression that the recipients of service was under no obligation to pay the service tax as per the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Laghu Udyog Bharti v. Union of India, 1999 (112) ELT 365 and that they were not aware of amendment made vide Notification No.4/2003-ST and, therefore, it was found that there was reasonable cause for delay. At the hearing, we asked learned counsel for the revenue the tax effect, which would be incurred by requiring the dealer-respondent to pay the penalty. The answer was that the tax effect would not be more than Rs.30,000/-. Taking into account the meager amount involved, we are not inclined to admit the appeal to decide the question of law raised. However, it shall not be taken to mean that we have expressed any opinion on the question of law concerning payment of penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act and the requirements of a reasonable cause under Section 80 of the Finance Act. We leave those questions open and dismiss the appeal on the ground that meager sum is involved. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE September 09, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE