TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he adjudicating authority to decide the quantum of penalty on ₹ 1,02,367/- under Section 76. As regards imposition of penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, it is upheld since the appellants have failed to submit the ST-3 returns for the period under dispute. - ST/35/2008 - FINAL ORDER No. 41037/2016 - Dated:- 27-6-2016 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member Shri Joseph Prabakar, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER M/s. Tirupur Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd., the appellant herein are registered under the service tax department for providing services under the category of Cargo Handling and Goods Transport Agency service. It was alleged by the depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax in time. He further submitted that a substantial amount of service tax was paid along with interest before the adjudication of the show cause notice and stated that they are before the Tribunal only on the penalty aspect. Hence, he prayed that the penalties may be set aside. 3. Ld. AR, Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC, appearing on behalf of the department submitted that it has been established that they have contravened the provisions of Section 68 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, in as much as they have failed to pay the service tax for availing the services of GTA for the period Dec. 2005 to Oct. 2006. Hence, the adjudicating authority has rightly confirmed the demand along with interest after ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived only on ₹ 1,02,367/- paid on 29.08.2007. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) denied the relief from penalty in terms of Section 80, as they were not able to substantiate failures to pay the service tax and of non-filing of ST-3 return. I find that both the authorities below dealt the issue in detail and were not satisfied with the reason adduced by the appellant for their failure to pay the service tax and for non-filing of return. Moreover, the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order substantiated the levy of penalty by relying on case laws and stated that the penalty levied is reasonable and does not require any modification. The case law relied on by the Ld. AR depicts that on similar issue and on similar circumstances, the Hon bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
