9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2009, neither paid Service Tax nor filed ST-3 return in time. The ST-3 return for six monthly period ending 30th September, 2008 was due on 25-10-2008 but was filed on 10th July, 2009. Similarly, the ST-3 return for the period ending 31st March, 2009 was due on 25th April, 2009 but was filed on 10th July, 2009. In both these returns the appellant had mentioned the Service Tax paid as nil, though the Service Tax payable had been declared. On scrutiny of the returns, the Department came to know about non-payment of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 6,67,226/-. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 25-11-2009 was issued for recovery of the Service Tax along with interest and imposition of penalties imposed on them under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Ramanasekar Steels Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chennai, reported in 2008 (85) RLT 122(CESTAT-Che) =2008 (9) S.T.R. 132 (Tribunal) has held that the assessee having been declared a sick unit by BIFR is a reasonable cause for delay in payment of Service Tax by the due date warranting waiver of penalty under Section 80, that ratio of this judgment of the Tribunal is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and hence the impugned order upholding the penalty under Section 76 is not sustainable. 4. Ms. Ranjana Jha, ld. Jt. CDR supported the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasized that merely on account of financial difficulty, penalty imposed under Section 76 for failure in dischargin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Section. This point has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Ramanasekar Steels Ltd. (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held that when the assessee has been declared as sick by BIFR it is a reasonable cause for delay in payment of tax warranting waiver of any penalty under Section 76. Things would have been different had non-payment of tax was due to fraud or with intention to evade the tax, which is not the allegation here. I am, therefore, of the view that ratio of this judgment of the Tribunal is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. No contrary decision has been pointed out by the respondent. In view of this, the impugned order upholding the penalty imposed under Section 76 is not sustainable. The same is set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
