9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002 to June, 2003, the appellant did not pay service tax totally amounting to Rs.51,425/-. Accordingly various show cause notices were issued to him. The L appellant deposited the service tax before the issuance of show cause notice along with interest of Rs. 16,249/-. Asst. Commissioner while adjudicating the show cause notices appropriated the service tax and interest so paid by the appellant. He further imposed penalty of Rs.500/- under the provisions of Section 76 and of Rs.500/- in terms of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for late deposit of tax and non-filing of returns. The said order of the Asst. Commissioner was reviewed by the Commissioner who enhanced the penalty of Rs.500/- imposed under Section 76 to the amount of tax so c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 80. No such justification has been given by the Adjudicating Authority in the order while imposing a reduced penalty. It is to be further mentioned that the CESTAT in Order No. A/1520/C-IV/SMB/WZB/2006 S/827/ C-IV/SNB/WZB/2006, dt. 30-8-2006 upheld the order-in-revision passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Nashik, in the case of M/s. Pushpak Publicity v. C.C.E. C, Nasik, saying that the minimum penalty prescribed is not just Rs.100/- but Rs.100/- per day." 4. The Revenue has drawn my attention to the LB decision in case of M/s. ETA Engineering Ltd . [2006] (3) S.T.R. 429 (Tri.) = 2004 (174) E.L.T. 19 (Tri. - LB)]. On the other hand the appellant have relief upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of Stay Order by the Hon'ble High Court, they deposited the tax along with interest leviable thereon immediately thereafter. In the circumstances, their contention is that there was no mala fide on part of the appellants and imposition of personal penalties upon them is neither justified nor warranted. 5. In view of the above, it become clear that the tax was not paid in time during the relevant period on account of the fact of pendency of writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and no mala fide can be attributed to the appellant. The said fact constituted a reasonable cause for the appellant to believe that the service tax is not payable, thus attracting the provisions of Section 80. I do not find any justification fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
