PER S.K. GAULE;
Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 112/CE/Ldh/09 dated 16.6.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty imposed on the respondents from double the amount to equal the amount of service tax involved in this case.
2. The respondents are engaged in providing service as Mandap Keeper. They were surprised by the Anti-evasion officers of Central Excise department. It was alleged that they have suppressed the taxable value. Therefore, demand was confirmed and the lower authorities has imposed the penalty of twice the amount of service tax involved under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty of double the amount to equal the amount of service tax. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Contention of the appellant is that the respondents have suppressed and concealed the quantum of service tax. The penalty under Section 78 had to be levied and the said penalty cannot be less than but not more than twice the amount of service tax.
4. I find that the respondents have suppressed the value of taxable service and both the adjudicating authorities have given concurrent findings so far as confirmation of demand of service tax is concerned. However, the lower adjudicating authority had imposed penalty of Rs. 71,400/-, double the amount of service tax i.e. 35,700/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty to Rs. 35,700/- equal to the amount of service tax on the ground that the respondents had been already paid service tax amount under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Section 78 ibid provides for penalty which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed twice the amount of service tax not levied or paid etc The Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bhopal vs. Rama Woodcraft (P) Ltd., reported in 2008 (10) STR 439 (LB) held that even where a minimum penalty is prescribed the authority has discretion to impose a lesser penalty. The penalty imposed in the case is not less than the Service Tax involved in the case. I find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, Order-in-Appeal is upheld and appeal is dismissed.