TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 1097
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave not discharged service tax for the period April'99 to March'04 and there was a delay in payment of service tax of Rs. 44,31,640/- which was subsequently paid by the appellant. The adjudicating authority in his order confirmed the demand and appropriated the amount and also imposed penalty of Rs. 7,43,586/- under Section 76 and imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Section77 for failure to file the returns. The assessees filed appeal against the denial of cum tax benefit and for waiver of penalty under Section 80. On the other hand, Revenue filed appeal against the impugned order against the reduction of penalty imposed under Section 76. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Ld. Advocate submits that service tax liability on consignment agent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udicating authority. Therefore, they cannot raise the issue of cum tax benefit. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly disallowed the benefit of cum tax benefit. He submits that they have not discharged the interest liability. He relied on the following judgments :- (1) Syndicate Bottles Vs CST Chennai 2014 (33) STR 389 (Tri.-Chennai) (2) Master Marine Services P. Ltd. Vs CST Mumbai 2014 (35) STR 79 (Tri.-Mum.) (3) Talera Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner 2015 (35) STR J182 (SC) (4) Transport Solution Group Vs CCE Mumbai-IV 2014 (33) STR 683 (Tri.-Mumbai) 7. Heard the submissions of both sides and perused the records. 8. The short issue on the appellant's appeal relates to denial of cum tax benefit and waiver of penalty. The Revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ismissed the Civil Appeal No. D 23523 of 2008 filed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Patna against the CESTAT Final Order Nos. A/355-356/KOL/2008, dated 19-3-2008 in the case of Commissioner v. Advantage Media Consultant as reported in 2008 (10) S.T.R. 449 (Tri. - Kolkata). While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court passed the following order : Delay condoned. The Civil Appeal is dismissed. The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had upheld the remand order of Commissioner (Appeals) where cum-tax benefit was directed to be given. The party was rendering Advertising Agency service and Service tax was not collected for services rendered to government agencies. It held that Service tax being an indirect tax, was borne b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service providers and service recipients for the earlier period. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable ground for assessee's plea for total waiver of penalty under Section 80. As rightly contended by the Revenue in their appeal, the lower appellate authority has no power to reduce the penalty under Section 76 which is specifically mentioned in the Section as Rs. 100/- per day of the delay subject to maximum of service tax amount. The appellate authority having held that penalty is imposable under Section 76 cannot reduce the penalty under Section 76. The imposition of penalty under Section 76 is purely for delay in payment of service tax for which no mens rea is required. The Tribunal in the case of Transport Solution Group Vs CCE M....