9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 years. Therefore, the appellant had been imposed with the penalty, under Section 76 of the Act. Since no acceptable cause or reason had been shown by the appellant for exercising its discretion, for waiving the penalty, under Section 80 of the Act, the penalty amount levied on the appellant had been confirmed by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, dated 22.11.2010. Further, it is seen that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. - C. M. A. No. 2072 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2015 - M. Jaichandren And S. Vimala, JJ. For the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the said period had been filed, on 20.9.2000. However, it could not pay the interest with the hope that it would be waived, due to the financial difficulties of the appellant. 4. It had been further stated that, on 21.3.2003, a show cause notice had been issued to the appellant demanding the payment of the interest on the belated payment of the taxes, for the period covering, May 1997 to March 2000. A penalty had also been proposed, under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, for the failure of the appellant to pay the tax in time, as required under Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, read with Section 68 of the Act. However, the appellant had replied to the show cause notice, agreeing to pay the interest, at the earliest, and had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Central Excise (Appeals), the appellant had preferred an appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, in ST/30/2004. The Tribunal had passed the impugned order, dated 19.11.2010, confirming the orders passed by the lower authorities. The Tribunal had passed the said order holding that there were no sufficient grounds to extend the protection from imposing of penalty on the belated payment of tax, by the appellant, under Section 80 of the Act. 7. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal had been admitted on the following question of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in passing the cryptic order approving the orders of the lower authorities without setting out the reasons as to how the grounds ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant, seeking to impose a penalty of ₹ 200 per day, for the belated payment, in terms of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Vide order in Original, dated 6.10.2003, the penalty had been reduced by the original authority to the minimum amount of ₹ 100 per day and the liability had been fixed at ₹ 3,42,389/-. The original authority had levied a minimum amount of penalty of ₹ 100 per day, under Section 76 of the Act, on the basis that, as far as the delay in the payment of service tax is concerned, there was no justification on the part of the appellant to make the payment with the delay of about three years. 10. It has been further submitted that the Order-in-Original, dated 6.10.2003, had been challenged b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the service tax, the appellant had been imposed with the penalty, under Section 76 of the Act. Since no grounds had been made out, by the appellant, for exercising the discretion, for waiver of the penalty, under Section 80 of the Act, the Tribunal had rightly rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 13.1. In HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD., Vs. STATE OF ORISSA (1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159) (S.C.), the Supreme Court had held that no penalty should be imposed for technical or venial breach of legal provisions or where the breach flows from the bona fide belief in the manner prescribed by the statute. 13.2. In D.R.GADE Vs. COMM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellate authorities on the assessee showing reasonable cause. 13.5. In BELLARY CITY CABLE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CUS. S.T., BELGAUM 2015 (39) S.T.R. 687 (TRI. - BANG.), it had been held that the appellant/assessee was not aware of the provisions of law and as a result, continued to operate as they were operating earlier. The intention behind introduction of provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, is to ensure that the assessees, who had not paid the tax, can make the payment with interest and a lenient view can be taken with regard to the payment of penalty in cases where there is lack of knowledge and reasonable cause for such non payment. 14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
