TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. After receiving this notice, the party voluntarily paid the interest on the amount of delayed tax. They, however, in the reply to the show cause notice, stated to the effect that the delay in the payment of tax was occasioned by a "cash crisis". This explanation was not accepted by the adjudicating authority, which imposed penalties of Rs. 6,92,312/- (equal to the total amount of delayed tax) and Rs. 5,000/- (at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per half-year for which return was not filed within the prescribed time limit) on the assessee under Sections 76 77 respectively. The party filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) but this appeal did not succeed. The order passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) reads thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise properly their discretion under Section 76 of the Act in the matter of determining the quantum of penalty to be imposed under this provision. In this connection reference is made to Final Order No. 997/04, dated 17-11-2004 [2005 (180) E.L.T. 107 (T)] passed by this Bench in Appeal No. S/29/2004. Ld. DR seeks to defend the impugned order by submitting that only the minimum penalty was imposed on the party under Section 76 and that the penalty imposed under Section 77 was what was fixed under that provision. 3. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I find that there is no dispute of the delay of payment of service tax for the relevant period, nor any dispute of the extent of delay worked out by the original authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he question now is whether a plea of financial difficulties ("cash crisis" in this case) is a valid reason to be admitted under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. In this commercial world, it is too late for anybody to say that a "cash crisis" is insurmountable. It also appears from the record that the appellants were solvent enough to write off 'bad debts' while continuing to do their business. Apparently, their financial difficulty was only in the matter of paying their dues to the exchequer. In the circumstances, their plea of 'cash crisis' cannot be accepted as a reasonable cause for exonerating them from the penal liability under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The order of this Bench cited by ld. Counsel is of no aid to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
