2017 (9) TMI 456

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pril, 2007 to September, 2011; that the respondent department issued a show cause notice to the appellants alleging that they contravened the provisions of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 and for imposition of penalty under section 77 and directed the appellant to file statutory returns along with late fee under Section 70 of Finance Act 1994. The notice was adjudicated, in the impugned order culminating imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 77 and directed the appellant to file ST-3 Returns for the default period with late fee provided in the provisions of Section 70 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7 C of Service Tax Rules, 1994. 3.   Aggrieved by the order of the adjudicating authority for imposition of late f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....venue has not filed any appeal against this order dated 29.05.2008. 6.   Ld. Departmental Representative after reiterating the findings of lower authorities; submits that appellant had defaulted to filing the ST-3 monthly returns. He draws my attention to provision of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 which talks about imposition of penalties, for contravention of rules and provisions of Act for which no penalty is specified elsewhere, and submits that the Rules provided for imposition of penalty for non-filing of returns. He says that the penal liabilities are attracted in this case. 7.   On careful consideration of submissions made by both sides, I find that the issue that falls for consideration whether 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

....ns to the Department return in such manner and in such a frequency; also provides for the submission of the returns belatedly on payment of late fee. The mandate of Section 70(1) as reproduced herein above, was not appreciated by both lower authorities, as it can be seen that this section will come into play when an assessee is liable to pay service tax. In the case in hand, it is seen from the records that the appellant has bonafide belief not paid the service tax and informed department on 08.02.2008. Expressing that his not liable to pay the service tax. Subsequently, in appellant's own case the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.05.2008, held that retreading of tyres amounts to manufacture. Under such bonafide belief appe....