https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152763 Delayed remittance of foreign travel tax was treated as a failure to pay within the prescribed time, attracting penalty under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979 as a civil consequence for breach of statutory duty, without requiring proof of mens rea. The proviso to Rule 11 of the Foreign Travel Tax Rules, 1979, which limited the officer's power to impose penalty to Rs. 5,000, was held to be inconsistent with the parent Act and could not override the mandatory penalty provision. On a full remand, the adjudicating authority could reconsider the matter afresh and enhance the penalty after hearing the affected party. en-us Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Sep 2014 09:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152763 Delayed remittance of foreign travel tax was treated as a failure to pay within the prescribed time, attracting penalty under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979 as a civil consequence for breach of statutory duty, without requiring proof of mens rea. The proviso to Rule 11 of the Foreign Travel Tax Rules, 1979, which limited the officer's power to impose penalty to Rs. 5,000, was held to be inconsistent with the parent Act and could not override the mandatory penalty provision. On a full remand, the adjudicating authority could reconsider the matter afresh and enhance the penalty after hearing the affected party. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152763