TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The appellant is a Mandap Keeper and is liable to service tax under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. A penalty of Rs. 45,3000.00 was imposed on the appellant for filing the returns late. 3. Ld. C.A., appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that service tax was imposed in July, 1997 for the first time on Mandap Keep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings of the lower authorities and relies upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of C.C.E., Jaipur-II v. Earth Tour Travels (P) Ltd. reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 754 (T) = 2001 (43) RLT 50 and submits that the penalty under Sec. 77 of Finance Act is mandatory and the authorities have no discretion to reduce the penalty. 5. Heard both sides. 6. In this case, the appellant had not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of C.C.E., Jaipur-II v. Earth Tour Travels (P) Ltd . (supra). In this case the Tribunal held that penalty under Sec. 77 of the Finance Act is mandatory and there is no discretion with the authorities to reduce the penalty. This decision has not taken into consideration the provisions of Sec. 80 of the Act. Therefore, the ratio of the decision of Tribunal in the case of Earth Tour Travels (P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
