ENBEE EXPRESS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 28 -2 -05, upholding the order -in -original, by which penalty of Rs. 35,425/ - was imposed on the appellant under Section 76 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of Rs. 1,000/ - under Section 77 of the said Act.

(2.) THERE is no dispute over the fact the appellant was engaged in courier service which was taxable service. Admittedly, the assessee had contravened the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, on as many as 40 occasions up to March, 2000. It had also contravened the provisions of Section 70 by filing the ST 3 returns late. Therefore, show cause notice dated 9 -10 -2000 was issued to the assessee in respect of penalties imposable under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act, for contravention of the provisions of Sections 68 and 70, respectively.

(3.) THE appellant in their reply dated 7 -11 -2000 to the show cause notice contended that they were rendering the courier service on a small scale and the contravention was due to their incomplete knowledge of regulations and they had understood that by paying the interest they will be exempted from any penalty. During the course of personal hearing, they contended no further ground. The learned Deputy Commissioner after a detailed consideration of the grounds raised, found that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Sections 68 and 70 and were liable to penalty. However, taking a lenient view, the Deputy Commissioner refrained from imposing any penalty for delays up to 50 days in the deposit of service tax and ordered that for all the delays beyond 50 days, penalty was imposable on the appellant under Section 76 of the Act. Penalty was ordered to be imposed at Rs. 100/ - per day and the amount was worked out at Rs. 35,425/ -. For the default of filing late returns, penalty of Rs. 1,000/ - was imposed under Section 77. This order came to be upheld in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), who found that the adjudicating officer has rightly imposed the penalties on the appellant for recurring nature of committing the same lapse. It appears from the grounds of appeal raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) that no ground was made out for any further leniency to the appellant.