2007 (10) TMI 131

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uance of show cause notice along with interest of Rs. 16,249/-. Asst. Commissioner while adjudicating the show cause notices appropriated the service tax and interest so paid by the appellant. He further imposed penalty of Rs.500/- under the provisions of Section 76 and of Rs.500/- in terms of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for late deposit of tax and non-filing of returns. The said order of the Asst. Commissioner was reviewed by the Commissioner who enhanced the penalty of Rs.500/- imposed under Section 76 to the amount of tax so confirmed. The said order is impugned before the Tribunal. 2. I have heard Sh. S.S. Burad, Advocate. Appearing for the appellant and Sh. Tarun Kr. Grovil, Jt. CDR appearing for the Revenue. 3. Commissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....27/ C-IV/SNB/WZB/2006, dt. 30-8-2006 upheld the order-in-revision passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik, in the case of M/s. Pushpak Publicity v. C.C.E.& C, Nasik, saying that the minimum penalty prescribed is not just Rs.100/- but Rs.100/- per day." 4. The Revenue has drawn my attention to the LB decision in case of M/s. ETA Engineering Ltd. [2006] (3) S.T.R. 429 (Tri.) = 2004 (174) E.L.T. 19 (Tri. - LB)]. On the other hand the appellant have relief upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Chitrita Virnave [2006] (3) S.T.R. 56 (Tribunal) = 2002 (145) E.L.T. 622 (Tribunal) = 2002-TIOL-CESTAT-Kol.]. I find that M/s. ETA Engineering Ltd. decision is only on the point that the "Penalty which shall not be les....