TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bject - Following decision of Dhandayuthapani Canteen - Vs - CESTAT [2015 (1) TMI 812 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of revenue. - C.M.A. No. 1018 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 23-4-2015 - R. Sudhakar And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For Appellant : Mr. M.Santhanaraman For Respondent : Mr. S.Yashwanth for R-1 JUDGMENT (Delivered By R. Sudhakar, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in allowing the appeal filed by the the assessee, the appellant/Revenue is before this Court by filing the present appeal. This Court, vide order dated 12.4.2011, while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- 1) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is legal and correct in setting aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt from adjusting the balance amount of ₹ 6,227/- towards the penalty. Against the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeal upholding the order of the adjudicating authority. 3. Aggrieved against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, while set aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, however, directed the assessee to pay interest on the delayed payment of tax forthwith. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the appellant/Revenue is before this Court by filing the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/Department and the learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uppressed the value of taxable services rendered by him and did not pay service tax, they are liable to penal action under Section 78 and Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, they registered with the department only in 2003 and did not file the statutory returns in terms of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. For the above contraventions, I find that Joe Transport are liable to penal action under erstwhile Section 75A and Section 77 of Finance Act, 1994. Further Joe Transport failed to pay service tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 and hence they are liable to pay interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. 14. In view of the above, I pass the following order :- i. I confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towards the penalty due in (v) above; vii. I impose a penalty of ₹ 100/- (Rupees Hundred only) per day, from the date on which service tax for the amount of June, 2001 is ought to have been paid till the date of payment of service tax as in (i) above, subject to a maximum of ₹ 4,06,449/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994; viii. I impose a penalty of ₹ 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) under Section 77 of the Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994; ix. I impose a penalty of ₹ 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) under erstwhile Section 75A of the Finance Act, 1994; x. I confirm the demand of interest at appropriate rates, under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. 6. It is the further submission of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apposite to refer to paragraphs (23) to (25) of the said decision, which read as under: 23. The decision in Dharamendra Textile must, therefore be understood to mean that though the application of Section 11AC would depend upon the existence or otherwise of the conditions expressly stated in the section, once the section is applicable in a case the concerned authority would have no discretion in quantifying the amount and penalty must be imposed equal to the duty determined under sub-section (2) of Section 11A. That is what Dharamendra Textile decides. 24. It must, however, be made clear that what is stated above in regard to the decision in Dharamendra Textile is only in so far as Section 11AC is concerned. We make no observations ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
