2005 (7) TMI 657

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he stay application and appeal are taken up together for disposal as the challenge is only with regard to the imposition of penalties under sections 76, 77 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant claims to be an architect without much work. However in terms of the returns filed by him, he was required to pay service tax of ₹ 35,901 for the year 16-10-1998 to 30-9-2003. He was a defaulte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e is no reason given by both the authorities for imposing such a heavy penalty. The reason and explanation given by the appellants has also not been considered. This is the first time the appellant has committed the offence, as the appellant was new to the field. Therefore, the nominal penalty in this case would meet the ends of justice. The appellants should deposit penalty of ₹ 1,000 each .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X