9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner (Appeals) has held that reasonable cause is shown by the respondent herein for non-filing of the returns in time and for delay in paying service tax – hence order of commissioner of reducing penalty is justified - ST/22/2008 - A/319/2008-WZB/C-II/(SMB) - Dated:- 22-2-2008 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Shri U.H. Jadhav, JDR, for the Appellant. Shri M.P.S. Joshi, Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty imposed under the provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is the submission of the ld. JDR that the Provisions of Section 76 have no mandate for reduction of any penalty. He reads the Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 and submits that minimum penalty of Rs.100/- is mandatory and penalty imposed under this Section cannot be reduced. 5. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals) and they have paid off the said penalty. 7. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records 8. Revenue's grievance mainly is that the Commissioner (Appeal) does not have any power to reduce the penalty imposed under Section 76. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) while reducing the penalty imposed under Section 76 has invoked the Provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure , to reduce the penalty imposed upon the appellants by noting that interest amount paid was about 40% of the Service Tax and therefore, any pecuniary advantage gained by the appellant is neutralized. The revenue has challenged this decision by filing Central Excise appeal No. 213 of 2006 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
