9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the appellant is ₹ 18,000/- and therefore the impugned order imposing the penalty of ₹ 1,80,000/- is wrong and illegal and infact the appellant is liable to pay only ₹ 18,000/- as penalty - appeal allowed in part. - ST/20168/2017-SM - 22650/2017 - Dated:- 27-10-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri HY Raju, Adv For the Appellant Shri Navin Kushalappa, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) upheld the order-in-original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is registered for providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate authority have wrongly applied the amended provisions of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7C of Service Tax Rule 1994 effective from 08.04.2011 for imposing a total penalty of ₹ 1,80,000/-. He further submitted that prior to the amendment of Section 70, the provisions of this section provided for payment of maximum late fee of ₹ 2,000/- subject to the provisions of Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules 1994. He also submitted that the amendment of Section 70 enhancing the penalty or increasing the penalty is only prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, imposing the penalty under the amended provisions is not sustainable in law. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010 were nil return and therefore, he is not liable to pay any penalty for the nil return as held in the case of Suchak Marketing Pvt Ltd Vs. CST, Kolkata, cited supra. Further, I also find that as per Rule 7C the appellant is liable to pay ₹ 6,000/- as penalty for the return pertaining to October 2010 to March 2011. Therefore, in all maximum penalty which can imposed on the appellant is ₹ 18,000/- and therefore I am of the view of that the impugned order imposing the penalty of ₹ 1,80,000/- is wrong and illegal and infact the appellant is liable to pay only ₹ 18,000/- as penalty and the appellant has stated that he has already paid ₹ 17,500/- vide challan dated 04.07.2017. The lower authority will verify t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
