9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008 to March 2011 the maximum penalty that could be imposed under Section 70 was ₹ 2000/-. Therefore, in respect of six returns, the maximum penalty that could have been imposed was only ₹ 12,000/- and not more than that amount. Therefore, prima facie I am of the view that the late fee of ₹ 1,01,500/- imposed is not sustainable in law. Inasmuch as the appellant has already paid a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggrieved of the same the appellant is before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant delayed filing of service tax returns for the period April 2008 to March 2011 and the returns for this period was filed on 07/09/2011. The reason for not filing the return was they were exporting the services and there was no payment to be made in respect of the services rendered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. This penalty was confirmed by the adjudicating authority vide order dated 04/06/2012 and in appeal the same was confirmed by the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel submits that under Rule 7C, there is a cap placed on the late fee payable and the relevant provisions reads as follows: Provided that the tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturn which came into force w.e.f. 08/04/2011. Therefore, imposition of penalty of ₹ 1,01,500/- in the impugned order is sustainable in law. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 7.1 Rule 7C read with first proviso makes it abundantly clear that the maximum penalty that can be imposed under the said Rule is the one prescribed under Section 70. During th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
