2009 (2) TMI 38

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndents. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical)] - The impugned order affirmed demand of service tax of Rs.23,414/- from the respondents found to have been due towards service tax under the head "Clearing & Forwarding Agents" during the period May 2001 to March 2003. The respondents paid an amount of Rs.7,631/- along with applicable interest before proceedings were initiated by the Depa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Tribunal in CCE, Bangalore Vs. S.B. Gopalakrishna reported in 2004 (164) ELT 185 (Tri.- Bang.). In challenging the reduction of penalty, the Revenue relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Union of India Vs. Aakar Advertising [2008 (11) STR 5 (Raj.)]. In the above judgment their lordships held as follows:- "If reasonable cause is not shown, and penalty is required to b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in Section 76 of the Act. Once penalty was found to be imposable u/s 76 the same could be only Rs.100/- per day or Rs.200/- per day for the duration of the delay in paying the arrears. Accordingly, the case was recalled. 3. The respondents are not represented. They have submitted a letter enclosing copies of challans evidencing payments of the dues as per the impugned order. They have paid th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion filed by the respondents. 4. The learned JDR submits that as per the Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2008 announced by the Ministry of Finance any pending appeal shall stand withdrawn once the arrears of service tax, penalty, interest etc are paid in terms of the scheme and a certificate issued by the designated authority in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 96 of the Finance Act, 2008. I find....