KALIAPPA GOUNDER THIRUMANA Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER examining the records and hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, I take up the appeal.

(2.) THE appellants had got themselves registered with the department as "Mandap Keeper" as early as in the year 2001. The department noticed that, for the period September 2003 to March 2005, they had not filed returns in time, nor paid service tax. They effected payment of tax during 23.8.04 to 27.5.05 and subsequently filed returns on 27.6.05. The department issued a show -cause notice on 7.10.05 to the appellants proposing penalties on them under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The noticee contested this proposal. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 35,210/ - on the party under Section 76 for the delay in payment of service tax and a separate penalty of Rs. 3000/ - under Section 77 for the delay in filing returns. The appeal preferred by the party against the decision of that authority did not succeed. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) IT is submitted by the ld. counsel for the appellants that it was not open to the authorities below to impose any penalty under Section 76 on the ground of delayed payment of service tax inasmuch as the tax with interest had been paid prior to issuance of the SCN. The counsel relies on the decision of this Bench in Sieger Spin tech Equipments (P) Ltd v. Commissioner [2006] 5 STT 377 (Chennai -CESTAT). As regards the penalty imposed on the appellants under Section 77, it is submitted that this penalty also requires to be vacated in view of the cited decision. I have heard the ld. JCDR also, who has reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.