9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 80 of the Act. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in providing security agency service and is liable to pay service tax w.e.f 16.10.1998 and he has been paying the service tax and filing periodical returns. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the period 01.10.2003 to 31.03.2004 wherein there was a delay on the part of the appellant in making the payment of service tax as required under Section 68 of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules 1994. Subsequently the appellant paid the service tax due along with interest in terms of Section 75 of the Act. Thereafter a show-cause notice dated 02.07.2004 was issued to the appellant. The appellant filed the detailed reply to the show-cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Order-in-Original has recorded the finding that there was no malafide intention on the part of the appellant to suppress the value of taxable service and also noted the fact of payment of service tax along with interest. After recording this finding the adjudicating authority did not choose to impose any penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 by exercising his judicial discretion vested in him under Section 80 of the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the revisionary authority does not have any power to interfere in the discretionary power of the adjudicating authority and in support of his submission he relied upon the following decisions: a) Final Order No. 648/2012 dated 17.09.2012 passed by the Hon'ble CESTAT, Bangalore i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, not on the ground that there was no reasonable cause or that the reasons were not acceptable to him, but penalty was imposed in substance to educate the taxpayer about his moral responsibility. Unfortunately, the assessee has not challenged the said orders but has paid the same. In such circumstances, the revisional authority had no jurisdiction to interfere with the said orders as the authority below had held that there was sufficient cause for non-payment of duty. Therefore, the order passed by the revisionary authority is erroneous and calls for interference. Hence, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. Hence, these appeals are dismissed. No costs." 5. We have also gone through the other judgments cited supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
