2009 (1) TMI 197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R and he has submitted an acknowledgement receipt from the respondents on 10-12-2008. The respondents have still not appeared nor sought adjournment though they got the notice one month in advance. In view of the same I am deciding the appeal by perusing the records and the submissions made by ld. DR before me. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents were engaged in providing Services of Clearing & Forwarding Agents to M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. but have neither registered themselves nor paid any Service Tax during the period 1-10-1999 to 31-12-2004 when the matter was detected by the Preventive Officers of the Department. The respondents were issued show-cause notice requiring them to pay service tax of Rs. 3,41,298 along wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ance Act, but does not provide the discretion to reduce the quantum of penalty less than the service tax amount so determined under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. In view of this it was submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the penalty from Rs. 3,65,940 to Rs. 60,000 was incorrect and should be set aside. 5. Ld. DR referred to the Tribunal's decision in the case of B.L. Mantri & Associates (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2006]4 STT 228 (New Delhi-CESTAT), wherein it was held that minimum penalty of Rs.100 per day imposed under section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 cannot be reduced when there are no grounds for reduction in penalty. In that case the plea of the assessee that the delay in payment was on account of change in staff did not find fa....