9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.03. whereas in another place 6.11.04 is mentioned. The errors in the reply by the assessee got repeated in the order of the original authority and that of the Commissioner. Since in the reply received on 28.7.04, the date of payment is mentioned as 6.11.04 and 6.11.03, the former is clearly a clerical mistake. The delay involved is only 12 days and not one year plus 12 days. Accordingly, the pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heard the learned DR and perused the records. 3. There is no dispute about the service tax liability and that there was delay in payment of said service tax. The dispute is about the number of days of delay in payment of service tax. According to the appellant, it is only 12 days attracting a penalty of Rs.1200/- at the rate of Rs.100/- per day. By an error, it was taken as 378 days i.e. one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the date of payment is 6.11.03, in another place it is mentioned as 6.11.04. In the earlier proceedings, Commissioner on revision order imposed penalty of Rs.37,800/- besides imposing penalty of Rs. 500/- each under section 75A and 77. When the matter came up before the Tribunal vide order dated 3.4.08, matter was remanded to the Commissioner to consider rectification of mistake. Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
