2008 (10) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er:- (a) Rs. 500/- under Section 75(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to make an application of registration under Section 69 of the said Act. (b) Rs. 100/- per day during which failure continued under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of service tax. This has been computed to several lakhs of rupees. (c) Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to furnish the prescribed returns. (d) Rs. 14,400/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for suppressing the value of taxable service. 2. The learned Counsel submits that the Service tax along with interest has already been deposited. He submits that penalty under Section 75(a) of the Finance Act is not imposable as the said provis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....blished. With regard to the imposition of penalty of Rs. 14,400/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, for suppressing the value of taxable service, the learned Counsel submits that there is no suppression of facts. Further he submits that in order to impose penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, the Original authority was required to obtain permission from the Commissioner of Service tax in terms of Section 78, but no such permission has been obtained. Therefore penalty under Section 78 of the Act is not imposable. He relies on the Tribunal's ruling rendered in the case of Salim & Associates v. CCE [2007 (7) S.T.R. 48 (Tri.)] wherein similar penalty imposed was set aside. 3. The learned SDR justifies the imposition of penalties un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs. (supra). The Tribunal has examined this very issue in cases where Commissioner had imposed very high penalty and in cases where the Original authority thought fit to drop the proceedings. The Tribunal noted the Board's Circular also to set aside the penalty. On this ground also I hold that the assessee has established their bona fide belief in not depositing the service tax. From the fact that the Original authority had reduced the tax to Rs. 7,200/- from Rs. 4.80 lakhs, it shows that the assessee had made up a strong case for setting aside the penalty imposed in the matter. Therefore the penalty of Rs. 100/- per day during which failure continued for non-payment of tax is set aside. In so far as the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section....