9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 2008 to December 2008 on 29.07.07 and for the period January 2009 to March 2009 on 16.09.09. Proceedings were initiated which culminated into imposition of penalty equal to service tax amount paid late by the appellant under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of Rs.5000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Heard both the sides. After hearing both the sides I find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lower authorities and this has been rejected. While doing so the fact that one payment was made before issuance of show cause notice has been omitted. Consequently whether appellant was liable to penalty in respect of this amount or not and whether provisions of Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994 could be applied to this particular payment has not been considered by both the lower authorities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d September 2009 along with interest due and payable under the Act. Thus the appellant has paid the service tax voluntarily therefore penalty under Section 76 was not justified. I do not agree with the appellant as the penalty under Section 76 is inbuilt and the adjudicating authority has no option but to impose the same as the service tax has been paid by the appellant late which attracts the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to be remanded for fresh consideration of the issues in the light of facts and circumstances and the provisions of statute and also judicial precedents. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the appellants to present their case.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
