Judgements

Shaman Marketing Research … vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 3 January, 2003

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Mumbai
Shaman Marketing Research … vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 3 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003 (153) ELT 231 Tri Mumbai, 2006 3 S T R 92, 2007 9 STT 264
Bench: S T C.

ORDER

C. Satapathy, Member (T)

1. Shri Z.B. Nagarkar, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have paid the service tax in the Union Bank of India instead of paying the same in the State Bank of India which is authorised to receive service tax in the jurisdiction of Mumbai-V Commissionerate. He states that since the tax has already been paid, the lower authorities are not justified in asking the appellants to pay tax again along with the interest. He also states that the appellants have a small business and that they should have been properly guided by the department instead of being penalised. He undertakes to produce proof of transfer of the amount from the Union Bank of India to the State Bank of India before the Deputy Commissioner within a period of one month from today.

2. Shri M.H. Sheikh, learned JDR appearing for Revenue states that the impugned order has been passed by the lower authorities as the tax was not paid in the designated bank and the returns were not filed in time.

3. After hearing rival submissions and perusal of case records, I am of the view that since some confusion was created on account of bifurcation of the Commissionerate, the appellants should have been guided to pay service tax in the appropriate bank. In any case, since the tax has been paid already to one of the designated banks, the question of asking the appellants to pay the tax again with interest does not arise. The lower authorities should have got the matter regularised by transfer of the amount from one authorised bank to the other instead of issuing the impugned orders asking the appellants pay the tax again along with interest. Since service tax is a new levy, the tax authorities should adopt a sympathetic approach and guide the new tax-payers like the appellants who have discharged their tax liability within the prescribed time-limit.

4. Considering all aspects of the case, I set aside the impugned orders passed by the lower authorities including the order of the penalty. The appeal is allowed.