N & N CHOPRA CONSLTANTS PVT LTD Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, GOODS & SERVICE TAX &CENTRAL EXCISE,DELHI EAST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which the assessee urges in this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, is that the multiple penalties imposed in the circumstances of the case were excessive.

(2.) The assessee is engaged in providing commercial coaching and training services and therefore, he is subject to service tax levy under the Finance Act, 1994. It was registered as a service tax assessee and it appears to have not paid up his liability for the period 09.09.2004 to 31.03.2008, however, he filed its returns stating that there was no service tax liability. The Income Tax Search and Seizure proceedings apparently triggered investigations by the Service Tax Authorities. The Assesssee in these circumstances offered to pay service tax dues and filed returns on 003.2009. In the meanwhile, a show cause notice was issued on 23.06.2009. For a later period, the assessee again approached the Service Tax Authorities, conceding its liability and offering to pay up its dues. The show cause notice culminated in order in original dated 06.01.201 Besides the tax liability, the Learned Commissioner (Adjudication), who adjudicated show cause notice, ordered, imposing penalties. The relevant part of the extract of the Commissioner's order reads as follows:

(3.) The assessee's appeal to the Tribunal under Section 35E and 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, was rejected by the impugned order. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the findings and penalties imposed by the Commissioner rejecting the contention that in the circumstances of the case, the contention about the excessive imposition of penalties both under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant urges that the Tribunal fell into error, in upholding the two penalties and relies upon the judgments in M/s. Raval Trading Company vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, (2016) 42 STR 210 (Guj) and the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court-in the case of First Flight Courier Ltd., (2011) 22 STR 622 (P & H) and Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhiana (STA No. 13 of 2010 decided on 12-7- 2010), 2011 (24) STR 173 (P & H). It is submitted that the appellant had deposited the additional amount of Rs. 5,06,270/- after the show cause notice was issued and had paid Rs. 34 lakhs prior to that. Given these facts, he states that imposition of any penalty under Section 76 was itself unjustified.