9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appellant's liability to pay Service Tax. 2. Imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act for delay in tax payment. 3. Imposition of penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act for late filing of returns. 4. Interpretation of Section 76 of the Finance Act based on conflicting decisions. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the liability to pay Service Tax. The appellant was found liable to pay the tax, but there were delays in tax payment ranging from 95 days to 187 days. Additionally, there was a delay in filing the half-yearly return. 2. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of &8377; 100 per day under Section 76 of the Finance Act for the delay in tax payment. Furthermore, a penalty of &8377; 2,000 was imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act for the late filing of returns. 3. The appellant contended that as per Section 76, only a penalty of &8377; 100 should be imposed during the relevant period. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision in the case of R.B. Bahutule Vs. CCE, Mumbai. However, the Departmental Representative (DR) pointed out conflicting interpretations of Section 76, leading to a reference to a Larger Bench in the case of ETA Engineering Ltd. 4. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of ETA Engineering Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai, held that the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act should not be less than &8377; 100 per day and may extend to &8377; 200 for each day of failure to comply. Considering the delays in tax payment ranging from 95 to 187 days, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal based on the Larger Bench's decision and dismissed the appeal. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues related to the appellant's liability, imposition of penalties under the Finance Act, and the interpretation of Section 76 based on conflicting decisions, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
