2008 (4) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'s appeal is against reduction of the Section 76 penalty to Rs. 10,000/-. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I note that, during the above period, the assessee had, on commission basis, received goods from a Mumbai-based manufacturer, sold it to buyers on behalf of the manufacturer, transmitted the sale proceeds to the manufacturer and received commission from the manufacturer for these services. They did not pay any service tax in respect of the amount of commission received from the manufacturer. However, before and during the course of departmental investigations into the above transactions, the assessee paid service tax of Rs. 55,084/-. In the subsequent show-cause notice, the department raised a demand of dif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the delayed payment of service tax during the period from 1-4-2000 to 30-6-2002. 6. I impose a penalty of Rs. 35,343/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994, for suppressing the date of commencement of service and value of taxable service for the period from 1-4-2000 to 30-6-2002 as discussed above." 3. Against the above order of the Assistant Commissioner, the assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter sustained the order of adjudication but with reduction of penalty under Section 76 to Rs. 10,000/- Hence the present appeals. 4. Learned consultant for the assessee has relied on certain decisions of this Tribunal already cited in the memo of appeal. These decisions incl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has relied on Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore v. Indian Refrigeration Industries Pvt. Ltd. [1980 (46) STC 264], wherein it was held that a reassessment order was also an assessment order which was amenable to challenge. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is not in dispute that the assessee was, during the material period, engaged in the activity of sale of goods supplied by the Mumbai-based manufacturer, against a commission. The expenses incurred by the assessee in connection with this activity were reimbursed by their principal. As held by the Larger Bench in the case of Medpro Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the assessee has to be held to have rendered "C & F A....