9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduced w.e.f. 1-7-1994. Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 requires registration of persons responsible for collecting service tax. The appellant, being a share broker, was so required to be registered. The appellant was registered as a stock broker on 17-12-1992. As per U.P. Stock Exchange Association Ltd. certificate dated 17-4-1997, till that date he had not conducted any business. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was claimed that the delay was on the part of the Post Office. Before the Commissioner, it was also argued that the assessee was not aware of the procedure. The Commissioner upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner, resulting in the present appeal being filed before CEGAT. 2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate arguing for the appellant stated that during the entire period, no business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g new, there was general lack of awareness. It was also held that in all these cases the assessee had not collected any tax. 1. Ashok Rastogi v. C.C.E., Kanpur reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 480 (T) = 1997 (22) RLT 513. 2. Shri Sajjan Kumar Kariwala v. C.C.E., Allahabad reported in 1997 (20) RLT 885. Shri Tilak, ld. DR for the department claimed that on these very grounds, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd quarter ending December, 94. In the present case, the failure is on the part of the assessee to file returns in time for four successive quarters. Ld. Advocate at the time of personal hearing reiterated the plea made in the appeal memorandum that the returns for three quarters were filed in time but were received late on account of postal delay only. The delay ranges between 12 days to 30 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny tax. Section 77 can be applied by itself for the consistent failure of the assessee, to submit a return in time, the penalty is leviable on him. However, in view of the fact the assessee had not conducted any business, there is cause for reduction of penalty. I, therefore, reduce the quantum of penalty from Rs. 20,000.00 to Rs. 5,000.00. Subject to this, the appeal is otherwise dismissed. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
