2006 (3) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner (Appeals) dated 28-5-2004. 2. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. 3. Ld. JDR, Dr. I. Marianna appeared for the Revenue who states that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalties imposed by the lower authorities under section 76 of the Finance Act mainly on the ground that in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... service tax matter. He relies on the case law in the case of Trans (India) Shipping (P.) Ltd v. CCE, Chennai (India) [2005] 2 STT 82 (Chennai -CESTAT), wherein it has been held as under: "Service Tax - Penalty - Quantum of - Delay in payment of service tax - Penalty @ Rs. 100 per day of default being minimum penalty imposable under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, appellants cannot have any .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e applicable under service tax legislation. In view of this, I set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) only in respect of the conclusion reached by him in respect of penalties imposed under section 76 only. In other words, the penalties imposed in Order in-Original by the lower authorities under section 76 is hereby restored. Appeals filed by the revenue are allowed accordingly.  < .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X