9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingly demand of service tax alongwith interest and penalty - Commissioner after considering evidence set aside penalty amount under sec.76 of F.A,1994 only X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating authority also appropriated an amount of Rs. 5,95,147/- and interest of Rs. 1,63,192/- already paid by the appellant. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants have filed this appeal inter alia on the following ground. 3. In earlier adjudication proceedings under similar facts and circumstances, Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had dropped the penalties imposed. As per th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such allegations in the Show Cause Notice and without putting the appellant to notice. The impugned order has penalized the appellant without establishing mens rea or culpable mental state. During the relevant period the issue was pending before the Supreme Court and therefore the adjudicating authority is wrong in imposing penalty. Relying upon various decisions of the Tribunals, the appellants r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the original authority has sought to impose penalty under Section 76 on the ground that the appellants have failed to discharge their tax liability even after the issue was settled by the Apex Court. I do not accept this reasoning. Delay in making payment of duty attracting penalty under Section 76 is condonable in terms of Section 80 if the appellants have a reasonable cause for not makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
