IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). /2025 (@SLP(C) NO(S).12925/2023)

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). /2025 (@SLP(C) NO(S).16432/2023)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

We have heard learned senior counsel Mr. G. Shivadass for the appellant and learned senior counsel Ms. Nisha Bagchi for the respondent.

The present appeals are arising out of a judgment dated 29.07.2022 passed in Central Excise Appeal No.3/2020 and order dated 31.01.2023 passed in Review Petition No.954/2022 in Central Excise Appeal No.3/2020. The appeal was preferred before the High Court against the Final Order No. 20106/2020 passed by CESTAT, Bangalore, in Signature Not Verified Service Tax Appeal No. 486/2009.

Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.18

12:13:11 IST Reason:

Learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee(s)

has stated before this Court and has also demonstrated that the entire service tax for the period in question has already been paid along with interest. However, he is aggrieved only with the imposition of penalty in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases. He has stated that earlier prior to the period involved in the present case(s), all branches were paying service tax as an independent unit and they wanted to centralized the entire system of payment of service tax through a single window and therefore, there was a delay in payment of service tax dues. Hence, proceedings were initiated by the Department. He has also stated that before issuance of Show Cause Notices, the entire service tax dues were paid by the assessee(s) and therefore keeping in view the aforesaid as the entire service tax dues have been paid by the assessee(s) along with interest, the penalty proceedings be dropped.

In light of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that penalties imposed by the Department in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases deserve to be waived and are waived, accordingly.

It is further clarified that there will no further litigation so far as the present lis (s) is concerned.

The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed.

……………………………………………………….,J.

( B.V. NAGARATHNA )

……………………………………………………………….,J.

( SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA )

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 07, 2025 ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.8 SECTION XI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12925/2023 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31-01-2023 in RP No. 954/2022 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam]

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE Respondent(s)

(IA No. 122658/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

WITH SLP(C) No. 16432/2023 (XI-A)

(IA No. 139804/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT

IA No. 139799/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 07-01-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA For Petitioner(s) Mr. G. Shivadass, Sr. Adv.

Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv. Mr. Anand Sukumar, AOR Mr. Rishab, Adv.

Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv.

Ms. Ruche Anand, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv.

Ms. Anamika Agarwal, Adv.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv.

Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, Adv.

Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv.

Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv.

Mr. Nring Chamwibo Zeliang, Adv.

Mr. Anand Sukumar, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed and disposed of in terms of the signed order which is placed on the file.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)