9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows :- 1.1 The respondent herein, a stock broker filed, a quarterly return for the quarter January to March, 1995 on 15-5-1995 under the provisions of Section 77 of Finance Act, 1994 relating to `Service Tax'. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Service Tax Cell assessed the said return allowing the refund of Rs. 754/-. However, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- for delay in filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent herein) paid tax for the first time. The penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was considered too harsh by the said Commissioner. 1.4 It is against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Revenue has now filed an appeal. 1.5 The ground given in support of the Revenue's appeal is that a combined reading of the Section 77 and Section 80 of the said Act would clearly indicate that onc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri S.N. Ghosh. 2. Opposing the contention on the aforesaid grounds, the respondents has submitted in their letter dated 16-3-1998 that the Service Tax was imposed during the period January to March, 1995 for the first time. The return was no doubt due to be filed by 15-4-1995 but the delay was un-intentional since the system was newly introduced by the Government. It was further submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise the Service Tax Cell as straightaway imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- without giving any show cause notice to the assessee or an opportunity to the assessee. The assessee has alleged certain factual position that the tax was imposed for the first time in January, 1995 and there has been no failure on his part on any account earlier. This allegation could be considered by the Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
