TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alties imposed by the adjudicating authority and sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). Held that: the show cause notice basic to the proceedings invoked non-existent provision Section 72 of the Act - The Commissioner (Appeals) did not give any finding justifying the order of the original authority - Prima facie, the order of the original authority and the impugned order are not sustainable - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in payment of the Service tax under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994; and (iii) Penalty of Rs. 6,96,724/- under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, as the assessee had evaded payment of Service tax. The material period is from October 2003 to September 2005. The pertinent portion of the Order-in-Original leading to imposition of penalties is reproduced herein below :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee is correct. Further as the assessee has delayed payment of the tax and has filed the ST3 returns late he is liable for penalty under the provisions of Sections 76, 77 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 . Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the order of the original authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the only issue involved was with regard to imposition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave canvassed waiver of penalties on appropriate grounds. 3. Ld. SDR submits that Section 72 of the Finance Act invoked was in existence during the material period. The assessee did not respond to the several communications made by the first appellate authority. The assessee had belatedly filed ST-3 returns after issue of show cause notice. Therefore, penalties imposed by the adjudicating author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
