SMART FINANCE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocate for the appellant and ld. DR for the respondent. At the stage of disposing of the stay application, since the issue falls very narrow compass we dispose of the substantive appeal after waiving pre -deposit. We do so after hearing the respective parties.

(2.) APPEAL is preferred against the order dated 08.11.2012 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) Jaipur whereby an appeal preferred by the assessee against the adjudication order dated 23.02.2011 (passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Sikar) was rejected.

(3.) ON a careful and detailed consideration of the primary and appellate order we are satisfied that the contradictions in the primary order are compounded by the incoherences in the appellate order as well. In para 16 of the primary authority's order the Assistant Commissioner after recording that the appellant failed to deposit the service tax due observed that looking at the quantum of commission earned by the appellant and amount confirmed against it and in the recognition of the fact that the appellant is a small service provider having a small liability I do not hope that the appellant is well equipped with the Rules & Regulations of the Finance Act, 1994; that several similarly placed service provides had expressed unawareness of provisions of the Act; and that on going through in other similar cases; the authority is satisfied that there was a reasonable cause for the appellant not depositing service tax in time. For this reason, the Assistant Commissioner dropped penalties under section 77 of the Act. However, in para 17 of the order, penalty under Section 78 was imposed while confirming service tax demand for Rs. 1,59,068/ -.