9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on the appellants under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Earlier the Tribunal, by its order dated 28-3-2001, while setting aside the Appellate Commissioner's order dated 3-11-2000 had remanded the matter for fresh decision in accordance with the law. Originally the appeal was filed against the order-in-original dated 22-2-1999 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, imposing penalty of Rs. 27,500/- on the appellant under Section 77 of the Act on late submission of the ST 3 return for the quarters ending September, 1997, December, 1997, March, 1998 and June, 1998. That penalty was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the earlier order in appeal since no notice was issued in terms of Section 70(2) asking then to file their retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scale. It was submitted that revenue should have inquired as to the nature of services provided by the appellant. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Ramesh Chandra Khanna v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 248 (Tribunal) = 1998 (103) E.L.T. 51 (Tribunal), in which it was held that sub-section (2) of Section 70 provided for an issue of a notice to the service tax assessee, who had failed to file the return. In that case, instead of doing so. the officer had chosen to issue a show cause notice and imposed a penalty upon him. It was a situation where the law permitted regularization of past error which law was not followed by the departmental officer. The learned Authorised representative for the appellant also hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required by Section 70(1) of the Act in respect of quarter ending September, 1997, December, 1997, March, 1998 and June, 1998, and this is why, he was called upon to show cause vide notices dated 12-2-1998, 29-4-1998 and 28-7-1998 to file the required returns immediately. They were also issued a show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed under section 77 on the appellant. 7. There was never any contention raised by the appellant, at any stage, that he was not registered as "tour operator" or that no such notices were given. The appellant never raised the contention that he was registered as a rent-a-cab scheme operator under clause (32) of Section 65 by mistake. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are wholly misconce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
