2007 (4) TMI 261

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order-in-original imposing penalty of Rs. 20,551 under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, for late payment of Service Tax. The appellant did not file any reply to the show-cause notice. 2. The learned authorised representative for the appellant submitted that the appellant had deposited the service tax along with interest on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ade out for not imposing penalty as contemplated by section 80. 4. In the present case, no particulars of ailment were given and it is now stated that appellant is suffering from asthma, which appears to be a chronic disease. No medical proof was submitted at the relevant time to show that during the period of delay, the sole proprietor of the appellant was incapacitated in any manner. The adjudi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X