9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April, 2007 to December, 2007. Proceedings were initiated which resulted in imposition of penalty of Rs. 22,800 under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the respondents. On an appeal filed by them, the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order reduced the penalty from Rs. 22,800 to Rs. 8,000. Held that- I agree with the rationale adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in coming to the concl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) in the impugned order reduced the penalty from Rs. 22,800 to Rs. 8,000. 2. The revenue is in appeal against the lenient view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) as regards penalty leviable by resorting the provisions of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground that this case is not a fit case for lenient view under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Nobody has appeared on beha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant paragraphs of the order: "6. I find that there is a total delay of 25 days and 86 days respectively in payment of Service Tax of Rs. 45,235 and Rs. 61,260 respectively. I further find that the appellants are not new to the Service Tax regulations as they are holders of registration since 2005-06. In this context, it is also relevant from the submissions of the appellants that this is the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Lower Authority to Rs. 8,000 by invoking section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994." 5. I agree with the rationale adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in coming to the conclusion that the respondents deserve a lenient treatment by resorting to the provisions of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
