TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5000/- was rightly imposed on the appellant as they have not submitted ST-3 returns correctly at the relevant time. As regard the submission of the Ld. Counsel regarding the option of 25% penalty not given by the adjudicating authority, we find that adjudicating authority must give option in the impugned order for 25% penalty. This issue has been considered by the Board Circular No. 208/07/2008-CX-6 dated 22-5-2008 and clarified that the adjudicating authority must give an option of reduced penalty of 25% penalty in the adjudicating order. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/86668/13 Application No. ST/ORS-92479/17 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2017 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr. Raju, Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culated,- [a] Highest of (i) penalty calculated at the rate of ₹ 200/- per day or (ii) at the rate of two per cent(2%) per month, on the service tax liability not discharged for the period 18.4.2006 to 09.05.2008, subject to a maximum of total service tax not paid for the said period. [b] I do not impose any penalty on M/s Oriental Facility under Section 76, for failure to pay Service Tax for the period from 10.5.2008 onwards. vi. I also impose a penalty of ₹ 51,59,813/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Thirteen Only), on M/s. Oriental Facility under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 as it existed at the material time. vii) I impose a penalty of ₹ 5,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax alongwith interest they did not have any malafide intention to evade service tax, accordingly in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act, penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 are liable to set aside. He alternatively submits that as regard the penalty imposed under Section 78 the adjudicating authority has not given any option of 25% penalty in term of proviso to Section 78 which is pari materia to the provisions to Section 11AC. In this regard he placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Commr. Of Ex. Cus. Surat-I Vs. Harish Silk Mills [2010(255)ELT 393(Guj)] (b) Commr. C. Ex. Cus., Surat-I Vs. Krishnaram dyeing finishing works[2013(298)ELT 376(Guj)] (c) Kranti Extrusion Craft (P) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t reported as Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Commissioner [2015 (37) S.T.R. J176 (S.C.)] that penalty under Section 76 ad 78 can be imposed simultaneously. As regard the penalty under Section 77, we find that penalty of ₹ 5000/- was rightly imposed on the appellant as they have not submitted ST-3 returns correctly at the relevant time. As regard the submission of the Ld. Counsel regarding the option of 25% penalty not given by the adjudicating authority, we find that adjudicating authority must give option in the impugned order for 25% penalty. This issue has been considered by the Board Circular No. 208/07/2008-CX-6 dated 22-5-2008 and clarified that the adjudicating authority must give an option of reduced penalty of 25% p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
