TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns 76, 77 and 78) as it is Rs.100 per day subject to maximum of service tax evaded being Rs. 3,65,940 and this is total consonance with the provisions of section 76 wherein penalty cannot exceed the amount of service tax not paid. It appears that no penalty has been imposed under section 78 where the minimum penalty is equal to service tax not paid – Revenue appeal against the order of comm.(A) rejected. - ST/181/2007-MUM. - A/39/2009/SMB/C-IV - Dated:- 15-1-2009 - K.K. AGARWAL, TECHNICAL MEMBER N.A. Sayyed for the Appellant. ORDER 1. This is an appeal filed by revenue. 2. The matter has been listed for hearing on five occasions earlier but the respondents have not responded to the same. It appears that the notices were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice tax but reduced the penalty to Rs. 60,000 considering the explanation of the respondents that failure to pay service tax emanated from lack of knowledge of service tax laws and procedures. 4. Revenue has come up in appeal against the same. In the appeal it has been contended, that Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the penalty proposed in the show-cause notice was under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. As per section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the quantum of penalty imposed shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed twice the amount of service tax so not levied or paid or short-levied or erroneously refunded which is determined under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. It was submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime have been held sustainable and in that case also the appellants who were providing the consulting engineering service has suppressed the fact from the department. 6. I have considered the submission. 7. I find that order-in-original has imposed a penalty of Rs.100 per day subject to maximum of Rs. 3,65,940 under provisions of sections 76, 77 and 78 which has been reduced by Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 60,000 only. Revenue in its appeal has contended that the show-cause notice has proposed penalty under section 78 and such penalty cannot be less than the quantum of service tax evaded or short-paid and can go up to twice this amount. This appear to be factually incorrect as while the show-cause notice has proposed penalties unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
