2007 (9) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 27-2-200 (sic), made under the provisions of Section 84 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, setting-aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner to the extent that penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the said Act were waived, and imposing penalties including the penalty of Rs. 90 lacs on the appellant under Section 78 of the said Act. 2. The adjudicating authority had confirmed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lying upon the statement of the Manager Satish Kumar recorded on 21-2-2005, that the service tax liability was not discharged because, the client had not paid the tax and that there was no intention to evade payment of tax, took a lenient view, by imposing a penalty only of Rs. 20,000 under Section 78 of the Act on the appellant. 4. It is clear that by invoking Section 78 for imposing penalty o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at, the Commissioner did not have the power to impose penalty under Section 78 of the Act, because under Section 78, as it stood at the relevant time, only the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise could impose such penalty. This contention is clearly misconceived, because the Commissioner exercising his revisional powers under Section 84 did not directl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore, a lenient view should be taken. It transpires from the record that for the two crucial half-yearly periods, returns were not filed nor was the tax paid. The statement of the Manager of the appellant who was looking after the Accounts and Finances of the appellant, discloses that service tax was charged from the customers (in answer to question No. 5), that the appellant was collecting servic....