2006 (4) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the matter for fresh decision in accordance with the law. Originally the appeal was filed against the order-in-original dated 22-2-1999 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, imposing penalty of Rs. 27,500/- on the appellant under Section 77 of the Act on late submission of the ST 3 return for the quarters ending September, 1997, December, 1997, March, 1998 and June, 1998. That penalty was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the earlier order in appeal since no notice was issued in terms of Section 70(2) asking then to file their returns. That order was challenged by the revenue and the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh decision pursuant to which the impugned order has been made. 3. The Commissioner considering the contentions....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Kanpur reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 248 (Tribunal) = 1998 (103) E.L.T. 51 (Tribunal), in which it was held that sub-section (2) of Section 70 provided for an issue of a notice to the service tax assessee, who had failed to file the return. In that case, instead of doing so. the officer had chosen to issue a show cause notice and imposed a penalty upon him. It was a situation where the law permitted regularization of past error which law was not followed by the departmental officer. The learned Authorised representative for the appellant also heavily relied upon the communication dated 8-3-1999 sent by the appellant to the Joint Commissioner stating that service did not fall within the ambit of rent-a-cab scheme operator. It was submitted t....