9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been filed against order-in-Appeal No. 185/2006 CE dated 14.06.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore. 2. Revenue initiated the proceedings against the appellants for non-payment of service tax. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed an amount of Rs. 35,339/- for the period from 01.07.2003 to March 2004. Interest under Section 75 was also demanded. A penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that the appellant was not familiar with service tax provisions and therefore did not collect the same from the clients. Imposition of penalty under Section 76 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day and other penalties imposed under Section 77 are very harsh. He relied on the following case laws, wherein it has been held that penalty and interest couldn't be imposed where the Service Tax has been p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant had not collected service tax from the client. In these circumstances, the Original Authority himself did not impose any penalty under Section 78. Taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, we set aside the penalties imposed under Section 76 and 77. However, the appellant is liable to pay interest on the delayed payment, as the various decisions cited by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
