2010 (10) TMI 783 - AT - Service Tax

Contravention of provisions of section 68 of the Finance Act - Penalty for contravention of any provision for which no penalty is provided - Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder for which no penalty is separately provided in this Chapter shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to any amount not exceeding one thousand rupees - Held that - penalty under section 77 may be extended to the amount not exceeding Rs. 1, 000 thus the maximum penalty can be Rs. 1, 000 but there is no restriction for minimum penalty and the lower appellate authority has rightly reduced the penalty from Rs. 6, 000 to Rs. 3, 000 in the instant case. no reason to interfere with the impugned order same is upheld Appeal filed by the revenue is rejected

Summary

Issues: Dropping of penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and reduction of penalty under section 77 ibid.

The judgment involves a case where the Revenue appealed against the dropping of penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the reduction of penalty under section 77. The Revenue argued that the lower appellate authority erred in dropping the penalty under section 78 and reducing the penalty under section 77. The Revenue contended that the respondents were liable for penalties as they failed to file the Service Tax return on time. The judge noted that there was no proposal for imposing penalty under section 78 in the show-cause notice. The judge agreed with the lower appellate authority that the penalty under section 78 was beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. Therefore, the lower appellate authority rightly dropped the penalty under section 78. Regarding penalty under section 77, the judge observed that the penalty could extend to Rs. 1,000 without any minimum restriction. The lower appellate authority had reduced the penalty from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 3,000, which was deemed appropriate. Consequently, the judge upheld the decision of the lower appellate authority and rejected the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of dropping the penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the reduction of penalty under section 77. The judge found that the lower appellate authority correctly dropped the penalty under section 78 as it was beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. Additionally, the judge upheld the reduction of penalty under section 77 from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 3,000 as it was within the permissible limit under the law. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the decision of the lower appellate authority.