9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act, asking as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 77 of the Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 for their failure to file the returns in time. The Assistant Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 10,800/- calculated at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day of delay. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) it was pleaded that Section 77 should be interpreted so as to mean that the total penalty was between Rs. 100/- and Rs. 200/- and not that everyday's delay attracted the rate of Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/-. The assessee relied upon Single Member Judgment in the case of C.C.E., Calcuttav. B.L. Company -1998 (29) E.L.T. 795 in support of their claim. The Commissioner having dismissed the appeal, the present appeal is before me along with the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m and verified in the prescribed manner setting forth the prescribed particulars. (3) Any person responsible for collecting the service tax who has not furnished the return within the time allowed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or having furnished a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) discovers any omission or wrong statement therein, may furnish a return or a revised return, as the case may be, at any time before the assessment is made." Sub-section (1) requires such filing within 15 days of the end of the preceding quarter. Sub-section (2) deals with the situation where such return has not been filed in time and requires the proper officer to issue a notice reminding the assessee to file the return within 30 days f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 98 the wording of Section 77 has remained the same. In the present case the notice under Section 70 has been couched in words making it into a Show Cause Notice. The lacunae in Section 70 has been make good by amendment. But the lacunae in Section 77 persists even after the amendment. 4. The issue for determination in this case is. whether the penalty prescribed in Sec. 77 as it then stood was to be imposed as a total of Rs. 100/- or Rs. 200/- or at a daily quantum of Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/-. I have seen the Single Member judgment cited above. I respectfully disagree with this judgment. If there was any doubt about the drafting of the relevant Rule, then the intention behind the Rule was required to be looked into. Where a particular date w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
