2010 (2) TMI 467

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ORDER 1. Appellant's grievance is that it was at the early stage of implementation of law, there was default to make payment of service tax of Rs. 81,408 relating to period from April, 2000 to March, 2005. For such minor deviation, equal amount of penalty should not be imposed when the appellant has complied with law as early as in April, 2000 till September, 2004. There is no doubt that shor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... registration from 1999, it was quite aware of its legal obligation. Nothing comes out from the record to appreciate preventable reasons if any for waiver of penalty. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. Although penalty quantum is Rs. 81,408 imposed under section 78 and similar such penalty levied under section 76 as well as penalty under section 77 of Finance Act, 1994, this mat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onal penalty subject to satisfaction of the ingredients of provisions of section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 6. Charge made against the appellant is apparent from pages 20-23 of the appeal folder demonstrating different nature of defaults like short payment of service tax and no payment of service tax as well as full payment of service tax during different periods. Neither show-cause notice no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....provide clear nature of default for levying penalty under respective provisions of law, the appellant deserves fair trial in view of decision of Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning Mills where presence of element of imposition of penalty is sine qua non. 8. In the absence of categorical finding by the authority below there cannot be imposition of penalty. Accordingly provisions of law ....