Back
CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, JJ.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai -Respondent
FINAL ORDER NO. 95 OF 2011 IN APPEAL NO. S/17 OF 2007
Decided On : 27-01-2011
S.M.V. Raman,T.H. Rao
Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President - The challenge in this appeal is only to the imposition of penalty as the Committee on Disputes has granted clearance to pursue the appeal only on the penalty aspect.
2. We have heard both sides. The demand of service tax and education cess of Rs. 1,02,19,325/- stands confirmed on lease rental received on tanks leased out by the assessees to M/s. CPCL during the period Aug.’2 to Mar.’05, under the proviso to Section 73(1) together with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of an amount equal to the tax together with penalty @ Rs. 200/- per day from the due date of payment of service tax and education cess demanded until the actual date of payment has been imposed under provisions of Section 78 and 76 of the Act respectively.
3. The assessees had intimated the Superintendent of Central Excise in-charge of the Tondiarpet Terminal about leasing out of storage tanks and also informed Assistant Commissioner (Central Excise), Chennai-I Commissionerate about the existence of two separate agreements, one for leasing of storage tanks located in their premises and the other for various other services rendered to M/s. CPCL such as de-loading etc. There is no dispute regarding the above position; however, the finding of the Commissioner is that since the assessees have not informed the officers in-charge of the service tax matters about their entering into a separate agreement and did not make available copies of the agreements to the concerned officers (Chennai-II Commissionerate), the assessees are guilty of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax and hence the extended period of limitation is available to the department. However, in view of the fact that copies of both the agreements were disclosed, although to the Chennai-I Commissionerate and not to the Chennai-II Commissionerate, we agree with the assessees that the charge and finding of suppression with intention to evade tax is not sustainable. We accordingly set aside the penalties.
4. The appeal is partly allowed as above.
