2013 (12) TMI 489

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sis of Section 80 to the case of the appellant. The only consideration before the adjudicating authority was that there was 6 days delay and the appellant had no mala fide. No doubt, in his testing under Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 pleading of appellant was agreed. The order recorded by revisional authority does not show such pleading. But the delay was only 6 days in filing return as is recor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mrs. R. Jagdev, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Moving stay application, learned Counsel says that in the original adjudication the authority was satisfied about absence of mala fide of the appellant in discharging liability of service tax. Being satisfied that taxes and interest were deposited on 10-11-2004 and return was filed on 16-11-2004 he considered that penalty is not imposable under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 994 and was of the view that the said section was not invokable. According to him there was default in payment of service tax for which levy of penalty was called for. 5. The adjudication nowhere throws light about analysis of Section 80 to the case of the appellant. The only consideration before the adjudicating authority was that there was 6 days delay and the appellant had no mala fide. No do .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X