Archana Wadhwa, - (1.)I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides after allowing the Stay Petition.
(2.)Penalty of Rs. 29,900/- has been imposed upon the appellants under the provisions of Section 77 of Finance Act, 1994 for late filing of ST-3 returns. The appellants' contention is that they are Franchise Agents of M/s. Blue Dart, M/s. DHL which are Courier Services. Whatever service tax was to be paid by them, has actually been paid by he said two Courier Services. As such, they are not liable to take any registration for the purposes of Service tax and to file any ST-3 returns. In any case, their contention is that since there was enough doubt, late filing of ST-3 returns should be condoned.
I have heard Shri A.K. Mondal, Id. JDR for the Revenue who submits that the appellants have since taken a registration from May, 1997 onwards and have been filing the ST-3 returns. They are also paying the service tax. This shows that it is primarily the appellants' responsibility to pay the service tax.

(3.)AFTER considering the submissions made from both the sides, I find that the Assistant Commissioner in his impugned order has observed that the appellants were independently raising bills in respect of services rendered by their clients. They have also obtained the registration for the said purposes and had been operating independently as a separate entity as a courier agency. As such, it is seen that it was the appellant whose responsibility was to pay the tax and to file the return in time. However, keeping in view, that there was a doubt in the appellants' mind as regards the filing of ST-3 returns and there is no dispute that the service tax has been paid by M/s. Blue Dart and M/s. DHL, I reduce the quantum of penalty from Rs. 29,900/- to Rs. 7,000/-. But for the above modification in the quantum of penalty, the appeal is otherwise rejected. Stay Petition, also gets disposed off.
(Dedicated and pronounced in the open Court)