Hi-tech Calibration Centre Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the appellants are engaged in providing the taxable service of testing and calibration of measuring equipments. they defaulted payment of service tax for the period april 2002 to september 2003. for this default, the lower authorities have imposed penalty of rs. 48,997/- on them under section 76 of the finance act, 1994. the authorities have also imposed penalty of rs. 1000/- under section 77 of the said act for the delay in filing service tax returns for the above period. hence the present appeal.2. after hearing both sides, i find that the appellants seek leniency as to the quanta of the penalties. their consultant has also claimed relief under section 80 of the act ibid. learned sdr reiterates the findings of the commissioner (appeals). appellants have no case that, either under section 76 or under section 77 of the finance act, 1994, the authorities have imposed penalty exceeding the maximum limit. their only case is that the delay in payment of service tax and in filing the returns was on account of the fact that they were not aware of the penal consequences. in other words, the only reason for the defaults is ignorance of law, which cannot be accepted as a "reasonable cause" within the meaning of this expression used under section 80 ibid, which reads as under : penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. - notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 76, section 77, section 78 or section 79, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.appellants are not eligible for the benefit of section 80.consequently, the penalties imposed on them under sections 76 and 77 get sustained. the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment:
1. The appellants are engaged in providing the taxable service of testing and calibration of measuring equipments. They defaulted payment of Service Tax for the period April 2002 to September 2003. For this default, the lower authorities have imposed penalty of Rs. 48,997/- on them under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The authorities have also imposed penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the said Act for the delay in filing Service Tax returns for the above period. Hence the present appeal.

2. After hearing both sides, I find that the appellants seek leniency as to the quanta of the penalties. Their Consultant has also claimed relief under Section 80 of the Act ibid. Learned SDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). Appellants have no case that, either under Section 76 or under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, the authorities have imposed penalty exceeding the maximum limit. Their only case is that the delay in payment of Service Tax and in filing the returns was on account of the fact that they were not aware of the penal consequences. In other words, the only reason for the defaults is ignorance of law, which cannot be accepted as a "reasonable cause" within the meaning of this expression used under Section 80 ibid, which reads as under : Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. - Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 76, Section 77, Section 78 or Section 79, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.

Appellants are not eligible for the benefit of Section 80.

Consequently, the penalties imposed on them under Sections 76 and 77 get sustained. The appeal is dismissed.