TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imposing the maximum penalty on the appellant, on the belated payment of duty, under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The appellant had formed a partnership company during the year, 1985, doing business in outdoor rural advertising services. The appellant had voluntarily registered itself with the authorities concerned, on 26.2.1998, and had also obtained a certificate of registration. Due to the misunderstanding that had developed between the partners of the partnership firm and on account of severe business losses, it could not pay the tax in respect of its business activities and therefore, no returns had been filed, for the period, from May 1997 to March 2000. 3. It has been further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t had paid the entire tax and interest before the passing of the adjudication order. 5. It has been further stated that the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise (ST), Chennai II Commmissionerate, had passed the order, in Order-in Original No.22/2003, dated 6.10.2003, imposing the maximum penalty, as provided under the Act, stating that no justification had been found for the failure of the appellant to pay the service tax in time, from May 1997 to March 2000. The appellant had filed an appeal against the said order, before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai, in Appeal A.1/2005 (M-II), pleading for waiver of the penalty, under Section 80 of the Act. However, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had passed a crypt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s discretion conferred on it, under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal had not considered the reasons adduced by the appellant for the waiver of the penalty. The Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the appellant had paid the tax, voluntarily, even though it was belated in nature. As such, the appellant had not attempted to evade the payment of tax, even though it was in serious financial difficulties. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. It has been stated that the appellant is carrying on business of outdoor publicity services. It has registered itself with the Department, on 26.2.1998. The appellant had filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant had approached the the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. The Tribunal, vide its order, No.1185/2010, dated 19.11.2010, had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the authorities below had categorically held that there was no justification on the part of the appellant to make the payment of tax with the delay of about 3 years. The Tribunal did not find the case of the appellant fit enough for the exercise of its discretion, under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that the order of the Tribunal in rejecting the appeal of the appellant is correct in the eye of law. No materials had been furnished by the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The appellant being a small tax payer, the revision of penalty equivalent to the tax amount, by the Commissioner of Customs, was unduly harsh. Hence, the penalty amount, under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, had been restored to the originally determined amount to Rs. 4,000/-. 13.3. In COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE Vs. BUSY BEE 2015 (37) S.T.R. 932 (MAD.) the Division Bench of this Court had held that the penalty imposed on the assessee would not be sustainable if the assessee proves the reasonable cause for its failure to pay the tax and if there was no contumacious conduct or deliberation or violation of the statute by the assessee. The mere payment of the service tax, which had been done belatedly, and the payment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....substantiate its claims for the waiver of the penalty amount and therefore, its claim is liable to be rejected. 15. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the appellant, as well as the second respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the appellant had not furnished any material to substantiate its claim that it was under severe financial hardship. 16. It is also noted that no materials were made available, by the appellant, to show that the erstwhile partnership firm had been converted into a sole proprietary concern. The service tax payable, by the appellant, for the period, between May 1997 and April 2000, had not been paid, for nearly about 3 years. Therefore, the appellant h....