TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2008 certified on 14.8.2008 in Appeal No. ST/100/2007) Shri Amit C. Palsule, CA for Appellant. Dr.Y.D. Banga, SDR for Respondent. [Order per M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)] - This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Revision No.168/NSK/06 dt. 28.03.2007 2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nashik issued show cause notice to the appellant for enhancing the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1944 (sic-1994). The appellants failed to pay service tax for the period July 2001 to September 2002, on being pointed out, discharged the entire service tax liability on 31.03.2003 with in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty, imposable under Section 76 of Rs.100/- per day and hence order-in-revision as passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs is correct and is to be upheld. 6. I find that it is undisputed that the appellant had discharged the entire service tax liability and the interest thereof before the issuance of the show cause notice. It is also undisputed that the said liability was discharged on 31.03.2003. 7. I find that the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bhopal Vs. Bharat Security Services Workers Cont. [2005 (188) ELT 454 (Tri.-Delhi)] was considering an identical issue as regards the applicability of the Extra ordinary Taxpayer Friendly Scheme for the cases which were decided, before the said friendly scheme came i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e original adjudicating authority has considered the provisions of Section 76 and read with the provisions of Section 80 and imposed penalty of Rs.1000/- under Section 76. It is the contention by the Ld. SDR that provisions of Section 76 80 are totally on different footing. To my mind this contention of the Ld. SDR seems to be mis-placed on the Face of the fact that the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in Central Excise Appeal No. 213/06 (filed by the Revenue) held as under:- "On the question of law as formulated in para 4(a), we find that on a consideration of Section 76 and 80, there is discretion in the authority of not imposing penalty. In the instant case, the Tribunal considering the facts on record has recorded a find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
