2007 (3) TMI 752

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the disposal. 2. Shri G. Subramanian, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri R.K. Singla, Jt. CDR appeared for the revenue. 3. In terms of the impugned order, the appellant is required to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 5,60,937 along with interest. A penalty of Rs. 1,000 under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 has been imposed. Further a penalty of Rs. 100 per day for the period 26-1-2000 to 31-1-2006 has been imposed under section 76 of the Finance Act. Equal penalty of Rs. 5,60,937 under section 78 has also been imposed. 4. The learned Advocate referred to the instructions contained in the Service Tax Trade Notice No. 20/2002, dated 23-5-2002 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II clarifying....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hem from their customers as cum-tax amount and to re-compute the tax liability. In this connection they have relied on the Trade Notice issued by Delhi Commissionerate and also two case laws cited (supra ), I reproduce the relevant clarification issued as under:-  (a)Para 8 in Tribunal decision in the case of Panther Detective Services (supra) : "8. Coming to the penalty amounts, the contention of the learned counsel is that in terms of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, no penalty is warranted on the appellants. The contention is that the appellant had been making payment of duty in time and wrong valuation is a bona fide error and such errors are excluded under section 80 from penalty. We may read that section : ....