TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome to a conclusion regarding the unawareness regarding tax liability/bona fide on the face of the fact that they had collected Service Tax - conjoint reading of Sections 76 and 80 of the Act, it is not possible to envisage a discretion as being vested in the authority to levy a penalty below the minimum prescribed limit – Order upholding reduction of penalty set aside - 825 of 2010 - - - Dated: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact that they had collected Service Tax, with a finding of fact on this behalf? 2. Heard Mr. Darshan Parikh, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-revenue. Despite service of notice, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. 3. The brief facts of case are that the respondent is engaged in providing services under the category of Business Auxiliary Service and is ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Authority vide the said Order-in-Original had imposed (1) penalty of Rs. 88,800/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for late payment of Service tax and (2) penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for late filing of ST-3 returns. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Adjudicating Authority, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . While deciding the said tax appeal on8-7-2010, this Court has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and restored the matter to the file of the Tribunal to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. 10. This Court in the Tax Appeal No. 1367 of 2009 has taken the view that on a conjoint reading of Sections 76 and 80 of the Act, it is not possible to envisage a discretion as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
