PNB fraud due to failure of internal control, says RBI.:      Celeb jeweller Nirav Modi named in PNB’s $1.77-b fraud. Bank suspends 10 officers, lodges complaint with CBI; more banks may be hit. :      Bombay High Court in a hearing on 6th Feb, 2018 says GST regime is not user friendly. :      GST Network Chairman Ajay Bhushan return simplification panel to meet industry this week to simplify the return filing process.:    Finance Secretary Hasmukh Adhia said the Government stares at a Rs 50,000 crore GST revenue shortfall in the current fiscal. :    E-Way Bill which was to be rolled-out on 1st Feb is deferred to month-end due to technical glitches.:      TN raked in 22% more GST at Rs 23,318 crore between Jul-Dec 2017, against Rs 19,018 crore under VAT in the corresponding period the previous year. :      MoS,Corp Affairs PP Chaudhary says in Rajya Sabha that Govt has detected GST evasion of Rs 5.70 Crores in 16 cases during Jul-Nov 2017 - 6th Feb 2018. :      FM, Arun Jaitley says that States are not in favour of bringing the petroleum products under GST. :      The Finance Secretary, Hasmukh Adhia says out of 7 lakh tax payers who opted for composition scheme 5 lakhs had a turnover less than Rs 5 lakhs pa, though the exemption limit is upto Rs 20 lakhs. :     

CESTAT Mumbai : M/s Shree Vaibhav Laxmi Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad : 17th March, 2017



Appeal No.  ST/86515/13
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. US/956/RGD/2013 dated 31.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II).

M/s Shree Vaibhav Laxmi Co.


Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad

Shri V.S. Sejpal, Advocate for appellant
Shri S.J. Sahu, AC (AR) for respondent


Date of Hearing: 24.02.2017
Date of Decision: 17.03.2017


Per: Raju

The appellants, M/s Shree Vaibhav Laxmi Co., are engaged in providing Manpower Recruitment and Supply Services. The appellants were collecting and paying Service Tax for most of the service provided by them. However, in respect of certain services they were under the impression that they are entitled to Notification No. 8/2005-ST. In respect of such services, the appellant did not collect and pay the Service Tax to the Revenue. However, as soon as the matter was pointed out to the appellant, they paid the Service Tax along with interest before the issue of show-cause notice. However, the demand was confirmed and penalty was imposed on the appellant. The appellants are not contesting the confirmation of demand, however, they are seeking leniency on invocation of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 for setting aside the penalties imposed on them.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that they were under bona fide belief that they are entitled to Notification No. 8/2005-Service Tax. However, when it was pointed out that they are not entitled to the said notification, they immediately paid the Service Tax along with interest. He argued that this duty demand was merely Rs.2 lakhs, however, they had during this period paid the Service Tax in excess of Rs.10 to 15 lakhs. He argued that there was no mala fide intention and it was under bona fide belief. In these circumstances, it was argued that the penalty imposed on them may be waived.

3. Learned AR relied on the impugned order.

4. The appellants have contended that they were under the bona fide belief that they are entitled for benefit of Notification No. 8/2005-ST. I find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is possible. The noticee have shown their bona fide intention by depositing the duty as soon as they pointed out that they are not entitled to such exemption. It is also seen that the noticees were collecting and paying Service Tax properly in respect of other services provided by them to other clients. In these circumstances and considering the substantial facts of the claim, I am inclined to invoke Section 80 and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.

(Pronounced in Court on 17.03.2017)

Member (Technical)


Additional Info

  • Date Range: Friday, 17 March 2017
  • Court/Authority: CESTAT
  • Tax Type: Service Tax
  • Petitioner/Appellant: M/s Shree Vaibhav Laxmi Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
  • Respondent: M/s Shree Vaibhav Laxmi Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
  • Appl no. or Appl year: Appeal No. ST/86515/13
  • Supreme Court Location: Delhi
  • CESTAT Location: Mumbai
  • AAR Location: Delhi
  • Authority: Supreme Court

Seven questions to know if you 

are paying taxes 


If you are the CFO or the Tax Head you ought to read this. Click Here

Our Main Services 

in Indirect Taxes


  • Business structuring and tax planning
  • Review of end-to-end business processes for indirect taxes
  • Strategy to prevent litigation, representation and litigation support
  • Tax compliance and tax control framework
  • Support on specific issues


Brief update on CESTAT judgements passed during June 2016 to July 2016. Please note this update is not a summary of the cases but only leads on important issues decided. The links to the judgments are also provided for the full text.

Click here for update

Go to top