2012 (4) TMI 274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rom the students and remit the same to the Government till 2006. Therefore, a Show-Cause Notice was issued on 18.8.2006 demanding Service Tax on fees received by them for financial year 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 along with appropriate interest and penalties. On Adjudication of the Show-Cause Notice demand for Service Tax of Rs. 1,93,238/- was confirmed along with interest. Further, a penalty of Rs. 1,04,600/- was imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act and penalty of Rs. 1000/- was imposed under Section 77 of the Act and penalty of Rs. 1,93,238/- was imposed under Section 78 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected their appeal vide order dated 16.11.2010. Aggrieve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant they paid the duty liability along with interest in different instalments completing by 18.8.2006, that is before adjudication. So there is a case for waiver of the penalty invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. He concedes that there was failure on the part of the Appellants to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) on both the occasions when it was decided by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants submit that they were under the impression that all facts were on record before Commissioner (Appeals) so he would take them into account and pass orders even if they did not personally appear before him. The counsel says that the Appellants deserve sympathetic consideration by the Tribunal. 3. The counse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R. further submits that the concession of payment of 25% of tax amount as penalty can be extended only if penalty is paid within 30 days from the receipt of the adjudication order. 8. I have considered the arguments on both sides. I find that in the first round of litigation itself the Tribunal was prima facie of the view that some leniency in the matter of penalty may be warranted in this case considering that tax and interest were paid before adjudication order and the fact the appellant are a small service provider operating in a remote locality. The fact that the appellants did not engage a counsel or personally appear before the adjudicating authority and on two occasions before the Commissioner (Appeals) appears to have gone agains....