VENUS COLOUR LAB Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOVING stay application, learned Counsel says that in the original adjudication the authority was satisfied about absence of mala fide of the appellant in discharging liability of service tax.

(2.) Being satisfied that taxes and interest were deposited on 10 -11 -2004 and return was filed on 16 -11 -2004 he considered that penalty is not imposable under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. He noticed that there was no mala fide of the appellant. But the revisional authority imposed penalty under Section 76 for 6 days' delay. He, therefore, prayed that appeal may be allowed dispensing with pre -deposit. Learned DR on the other hand submits that the assessee is in default repeatedly. In first adjudication, the assessee was relieved from penal consequence of law. But when there was repetition, in second adjudication relief from penalty was unwarranted. Accordingly, revisional authority imposed penalty.

(3.) PENALTY levied by revisional order is Rs. 60,846/ - under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The revisional authority suo motu analysed the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and was of the view that the said section was not invokable. According to him there was default in payment of service tax for which levy of penalty was called for.