9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the tax due imposed under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act). Also a penalty of Rs. 9,67,681 was imposed under section 78 of that Act. The Ld. Appellate Authority found that the appellant although had collected service tax from its customers, there was default in making deposit of the tax collected and also the tax due. That authority also found that there was suppression of fact which prevented revenue to realize its dues. Accordingly, imposition of penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Act was in conformity with law while the appellant has already deposited the service tax demanded before issuance of show-cause notice to the appellant. 2. The Ld. chartered accountant Shri Agarwal appeared on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 78 of that Act consequently. 4.3 The second issue in this appeal being whether the appellant was liable to penalty under section 76 of the Act. We mainly concentrated on the governing facts and attendant circumstances calling for penalty. Argument of the appellant did not throw light why tax realized was not deposited into the treasury and whether there was reasonable cause to grant impunity under the law. Bona tide of the appellant could not come forward nor any reasonable cause was placed before us to consider the reason of failure to make deposit of the tax due. Appellant's plea that entire tax having been deposited before issue of show-cause notice it is entitled to immunity from penalty would tantamount to condoning violatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve measure. 6. We examined the case from its angle of gravity, governing facts, conduct, attitude of the appellant and attendant circumstances in relation to compliance with the provisions of the statute and also in the light of Apex Court decisions in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Slate of Orissa 1978 (2) ELT (J159). It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. It was also held that penalty will not also b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
