9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty imposed under Section 77 that Service Tax returns had to be filed by the appellant. As they have accepted the Service Tax liability for the period 16-6-2005 to 31-3-2006, the penalty imposed under Section 77 is also liable to imposed on the appellant and the same is upheld. As regards the penalty imposed under Section 78, that the learned Commissioner (A) in his first order dated 27-3-2007 had set aside the demand of Service Tax for the period 1-7-2003 to 15-6-2005 coming to a conclusion that there was no suppression of facts, fraud, mis-statement or collusion, as there was a correspondence between the appellant and the Superintendent/Authorities. Hence, the impugned order to the extent it upholds the penalty imposed under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 706/- along with interest for the period 16-6-2005 to 27-6-2005. Also penalty of Rs. 200/- per day under Section 76, Rs.1000/- under Section 77 and equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was imposed. Aggrieved by this, the appellant have preferred this appeal on the ground that once it was held by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), that the appellants could not be proceeded against by invoking extended period of limitation, it only followed that no intent to evade payment of Service Tax could be attributed. 2.1 Aggrieved by the de novo order passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority, the appellants preferred an appeal with the learned Commissioner (A). The learned Commissioner (A) after considering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h by both sides and perused the records. The appellant is only challenging the penalties imposed on them by the Adjudicating Authority in the de novo adjudication and as upheld by first appellate authority. It is not in dispute that the appellant had accepted the confirmation of demand of Service Tax for the period 16-6-2005 to 31-3-2006 and has discharged the Service Tax liability along with interest. Their challenge is only towards the imposition of penalties. On perusal of the case records, I find that the Adjudicating Authority has imposed penalties on the appellant under provisions of Sections 76, 77 and 78. 5.1 As regards the penalty imposed under Section 76, I find that the appellants are liable to be penalized as they have not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
