2009 (7) TMI 1090

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... viz. maintenance or repair services, erection and commissioning and GTA; that on scrutiny of ST3 returns, meant for Half Year - October, 2007 to March, 2008, it was noticed that the appellant has not paid Service tax due in respect of all the above services; that accordingly, a SCN dated 24-7-2008 was issued directing the appellant to show cause as to why total Service tax amount of Rs. 3,22,543/- payable during the said period should not be demanded under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as the Act), penalty should not be imposed under Section 76 of the Act and interest should not be demanded under Section 75 of the Act; that on adjudication, the Service tax amount paid subsequent to issuance of SCN was confirmed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v. Mukul S. Patil - 2008 (10) S.T.R. 115 (Bom.) (d) CCE v. Madhuri Travels - 2008 (11) S.T.R. 408 (Tribunal) (e) M. R. Bhagat & Associates v. CCE - 2008 (10) S.T.R. 130 (Tribunal) (f) J. K. D. Popat & Co. v. CCE - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 541 (Tribunal); (vi) that the Assistant Commissioner has not explained as to how and why he has imposed equal penalty when Section 76 provides for penalty of Rs. 200/- per day or 2% per month of the Service tax paid late whichever is higher; (vii) that the total days of delay are 325 days and as per 2% per month on the amount defaulted, comes to Rs. 66,660/- and for the penalty of Rs. 200/- per day which comes to Rs. 65,000/- and hence on this ground also, the imposition of penalty is not sustainable....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the penalty for late payment, is imposable either @ Rs. 200/- per day or 2% of defaulted amount per month, whichever is higher. In other words, the penalty is imposable for late payment which cannot be under dispute and if the sufficient cause is shown for late payment, the discretion is also available to the adjudicating authority for waiver of penalty in terms of Section 80 of the Act. But in the instant case, no sufficient/reasonable reason has been put forth by the appellant. As rightly held by the lower authority, non-availability/insufficient funds cannot be stated as the reason for making late payments. Under the above circumstances, there cannot be full waiver of penalty. However, as contended by the appellant, the lower authority....