ORDER
R.K. Abichandani, J. (President)
1. In this appeal, the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner by which penalty of Rs. 60,400/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, has been challenged.
2. We have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned Authorised Representative for the Department and have considered the contentions which were raised by the appellant before the authorities below, even though the appellant has remained absent and has not been represented at this hearing. The only contention, which the appellant has taken up in the memo of appeal is that, the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in law and facts by confirming the penalty. Before the authorities below, the appellant had taken up a contention that there was utter confusion whether service tax was applicable on the service rendered in India and, therefore, a reasonable ground was made out under Section 80 of the Act for not imposing any penalty.
3. There was no dispute over the fact that the service provider had failed to deposit the service tax in time and had deposited the same after due date, as detailed in the order of the adjudicating authority. The facts clearly disclose that the service provider failed to comply with the provisions of Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended, and has rendered himself liable to penal action under Section 76 of the Act. The services rendered in India, for which payment was received in convertible foreign exchange, were no more exempt from 1-3-2002, in view of the fact that the earlier Notification No. 6/99-ST, dated 9th April, 1999 was rescinded by the Notification No. 2/2003-ST, dated 1-3-2003. Therefore, the exemption, earlier provided, stood withdrawn w.e.f. 1-3-2003 leaving no scope for any confusion. The Deputy Commissioner and the appellate authority have, therefore, rightly found that there was no confusion regarding payment of service tax in respect of the services rendered to any person for which payment was received in convertible foreign exchange in India. The authorities below have, therefore, correctly given a concurrent finding that the appellant had no reason for not depositing the service tax within the stipulated period. There is absolutely no warrant for interfering with the impugned order which has been validly made in accordance with law and on the basis of the material on record. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)