9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 912X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent [Order per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar] The appellant are registered with the Department as providers of Clearing and Forwarding Services. It was noticed from the ST3 returns filed by the appellant on 09.01.2007 for the period from April 2006 to September 2006, and their letter dated 10.01.2007 that they desired to submit a revised return for the period from July 2003 to September 2003, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rked out and arrived at Rs. 6,13,000/-. As the appellant submitted a revised return, the relevant date for the notice was taken as the date of filing of the revised return as per the provisions of Section 73 (6) of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, demand was raised for the amounts already paid to be adjusted and the interest for the delay in payment of Service Tax liability under Section 76 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce this appeal. 4. On behalf of appellant Ld. Counsel Sh. V. Ravindranath submitted that imposition of penalty under Section 76 was unsustainable. He submits that tax was paid by them voluntarily and revised return was also filed for the same. The dispute emanated only because of non-payment of interest liability thereon which in any case was discharged by them subsequently. He relied upon the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and also following the ratio of the case laws relied upon by Ld. Counsel, I am of the considered opinion that imposition of penalty under Section 76 in this case is unjust and unfair. In view of the extenciating circumstances, the original or lower appellate authority should have permitted waiver of penalties by invokation of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 8. In the result penalty impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
