Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Apoorva Advertising And Promotions vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 8 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2006[ ]S.T.R.170
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming imposition of penalty on the appellant of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. I have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.
3. The penalty has been imposed on the appellant for the reason that it did not file the return in respect of the service tax payable on advertising services rendered by it. The appellant does not deny the delay in filing the return. The delay attributes it to the fact that it discontinued its business from 1-4-1997. The return has not been filed for the quarter ending December, 1996. It contends that the service tax for the period from November, 1996 till March, 1997 has been paid.
4. The adjudicating authority or the appellate authority did not dispute the payment of the tax within the time specified by law or the correct amount of such tax. The failure to file the return would not have any great significance but would be more of procedural contravention. In that view of the matter, I think considerable leniency is called for and reduce the penalty to Rs. 1000/-.
5. The appeal is thus allowed in part.
(Dictated in Court)