Late fee appropriation void, penalty rejected, imposed equal penalty to service tax paid.

The judgment set aside the appropriation of late fee towards penalty under Section 77, rejected the appellant's prayer for penalty under Section 77, and directed the imposition of a penalty equal to the service tax and education cesses paid by the respondent for the extended period under Section 78, to be quantified by the original authority after providing a hearing opportunity to the assessee for quantification purposes.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Imposition of penalty on the respondent under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994.
2. Contesting the penal proposal under Section 78 of the Act.
3. Appropriation of late fee towards penalty under Section 77 of the Act.
4. Determination of penalty under Section 78 based on the amount of service tax paid.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal filed by the department sought the imposition of penalties on the respondent under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act 1994. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed a demand against the respondent for service tax, education cesses, and late fee. The original order did not impose penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78, leading to the department's dissatisfaction. The jurisdictional Commissioner issued a show-cause notice under Section 84, contesting the penalties. The revisionary authority imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 77 but dropped the penalty under Section 78, prompting the department's appeal against this decision.

2. The appellant argued that the respondent had the intention to evade service tax payment, citing their failure to obtain registration or file returns. The dropping of the penalty under Section 78 was contested, claiming that the respondent tacitly acknowledged the circumstances by paying the dues without challenging the original order. The dropping of the penalty was deemed legally unsustainable. The Commissioner imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 77, but the appropriation of late fee towards penalty under Section 77 was challenged as beyond the scope of the show-cause notice.

3. The original show-cause notice invoked the proviso to Section 73(1) for suppression of taxable service value to evade service tax payment. The respondent accepted the order confirming the demand and payments made, implying acceptance of the suppression allegation. The dropping of the penalty under Section 78 based on the lack of intention to evade payment was deemed unsustainable. The quantification of the penalty under Section 78 was deemed necessary based on the service tax and cesses paid for the extended period, leaving the determination to the original authority.

4. The judgment set aside the appropriation of late fee towards penalty under Section 77, rejected the appellant's prayer for penalty under Section 77, and directed the imposition of a penalty equal to the service tax and education cesses paid by the respondent for the extended period under Section 78, to be quantified by the original authority after providing a hearing opportunity to the assessee for quantification purposes.

---