2017 (2) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] 1. The above appeal is filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the confirmation of service tax as well as the penalty imposed under section 78 and section 70 of the  Finance Act, 1994. 2. On behalf of the appellant the Ld. Counsel Sh. R. Dakshina Murthy submitted that the appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cating authority. Further, within one month of passing of the Order-in-Original, that is, on 19.10.2012 the appellant had paid Rs. 3,712/- towards penalty which would make the total penalty paid equal to 25% of the service tax confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant was not given the option of reduced penalty by the adjudicating authority as well as th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is liable to pay the equal amount of penalty. It was also argued that the appellant has delayed filing of 6 ST-3 returns and therefore is liable to pay the balance late fee (penalty) of Rs. 6,000/-. 4. I have heard both sides. On perusal of records it is clear that the appellant has not been given an option of reduced penalty as provided under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., I hold that the equal amount of penalty upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) is unjustified, The same is set aside. 5. However, I do not find the arguments put forward by the Ld. Counsel with regard to the late fee imposed under section 70 to be convincing. The department contends that the appellant has delayed 6 ST-3 returns filed with delay whereas the Cd. Counsel submits that only 3 ST-3 r....