2020 (4) TMI 204

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Revenue/department, Revenue is seeking enhancement of penalty under section 78 as in the Order-in-Original, the learned Commissioner has imposed 25% penalty which was subsequently enhanced by way of corrigendum to 100% of tax amount in dispute. The assessee has filed appeal challenging that the penalty under section 78 is not imposable, there being reasonable cause and there being no case of deliberate defiance of law. 3. The admitted facts are that the assessee is registered with the service tax department and have been regularly making compliance and filing their ST-3 returns. Sometime during the period January-February, 2010 it appeared to revenue that appellant is not declaring the proper turnover including taxable turnover and als....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ious challans dt.04.03.2010 to 18.10.2010 and the same was proposed to be appropriated in SCN dt.22.10.2010 along with interest which had also been deposited and proposed to be appropriated. 4. The SCN was contested and proposed demand was confirmed and appropriated along with interest vide Order-in-Original by learned Commissioner, who was pleased to impose 25% penalty of the adjudicated tax amount, at Rs. 22,45,620/-. After passing the impugned Order-in- Original by corrigendum dt.29.10.2011, the learned Commissioner enhanced the penalty to Rs. 89,89,900/- under section 78 of the Act, subject to option of payment of 25%, if paid within 30 days. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee states that under the admitted facts an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the admitted facts and circumstances, the case of deliberate default is made out and the penalty under section 78 may be imposed at 100% of the adjudicated amount. Further, he relies on the following judgments: a) K. Madhav Kamath Brother & Co. vs CCE, Mangalore [2014 (9) TMI 214 (CESTAT-Bangalore)] b) Master Marine Services P Ltd vs CST, Mumbai [2014 (4) TMI 957 (CESTAT-Mumbai)] c) Syndicate Bottles vs CST, Chennai [2013 (9) TMI 665 (CESTATChennai)] d) Salim Travels vs CGST, Thane [2019 (4) TMI 32 (CESTAT-Mumbai)]. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that appellant was registered with the department; they have been filing returns regularly and further maintaining proper books of acc....