TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts of tax. Against these penalties, the assessee preferred appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter reduced the quantum of penalty in each case to Rs. 1,000/- . The Revenue is aggrieved by this reduction of penalty in these appeals. S/2/2003: 2. This is an appeal filed by the same assessee. This appeal does not figure in today's cause list, though it is ripe for hearing. As it has been pointed out by both sides that the issue in this appeal is similar to that involved in the above appeals of the Revenue, I have taken up this appeal with the consent of both sides. This appeal is against an order of the Commissioner, passed under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, imposing penalty on the assessee under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so relied on the Tribunal's decision in Palika Palace v. CCE [2001 (134) E.L.T. 677]. Ld. SDR has not accepted this explanation and has reiterated the grounds stated in the Revenue's appeals. The DR has also relied on the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Tata Consultancy Services v. UOI [2001 (130) E.L.T. 726 (Kar)]. 5. I have carefully examined the records and considered the submissions of both sides. Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 reads as under: " Section 76. Penalty for failure to collect or pay service tax. - Any person, liable to pay service tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 or the rules made thereunder, who fails to pay such tax shall pay in addition to paying such tax, and interest on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 288 12. Sep-2000 14,396 25-10-2000 8-10-2001 347 13. Oct-2000 21,389 25-11-2000 11-7-2001 227 14. Nov-2000 10,071 25-12-2000 3-12-2001 342 15. Dec-2000 25,723 25-1-2001 22-11-2001 300 16. Jan-01 18,855 25-2-2001 22-11-2001 289 17. Feb-01 11,284 25-3-2001 22-11.2001 241 18. Mar-01 9,677 25-4-2001 22-11-2001 210 The above table correctly mentions the extent of delay of payments of service tax, involved in all the three appeals. For instance, there was a delay of 330 days in the payment of servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause stated by the assessee, in this case, is that they were in financial hardships on account of having fallen into the clutches of a "Mafia". There is no evidence on record to show that the assessee has prosecuted their defrauders as per law. Service providers like the assessee cannot be heard to say that they were ignorant of the law during the material period. To have associated themselves with Mafia and thereby fallen in financial hardships, in my view, is no "reasonable cause" within the meaning of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, for the purpose of setting up defence against penalty under Section 76. Thus, in this case, one has to fall back upon Section 76 and decide whether the reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
