G.A. Brahma Deva, Judicial Member - These are four appeals. Since the issue involved is common in all these appeals, they are taken together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. (a) In Appeal No. ST/4/02, Show Cause Notice has been issued to the party to impose penalty in terms of sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the failure to furnish the ST-3 returns within the due dates. According to the Department, the assessee had failed to pay the service tax in time to the credit of the Central Government payable in respect of the services rendered during the quarter ending 12/99 and 3/2000 by the 25th of the month immediately following the said quarter, was paid into the credit of the Central Government only on 4-4-2000 for the quarter ending December 1999, dated 4-7-2000 for the quarter ending March 2000. Therefore, there was a delay of 139 days while paying the Service Tax for the abovesaid period and accordingly, the assessee had contravened the provisions of section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Show Cause Notice has been adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II and vide his order dated 14-5-2001, imposed penalty of Rs. 250 and Rs. 200 respectively in terms of sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.

(b) The order passed by the adjudicating authority was reviewed by the Commissioner in terms of section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 and as per the review order, the Commissioner has enhanced the penalty of Rs. 12,000 in terms of section 76 of the Finance Act holding that the assessee is liable to pay the penalty at the rate of Rs. 100 for every day of the delay or the service tax amount whichever is less in terms of section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.

3. In appeal No. ST/6/02 the Deputy Commissioner who adjudicated the matter has imposed a penalty of Rs. 500 under section 76 of the Finance Act as there was a delay in filing the service tax return. In the review proceedings, the Commissioner has enhanced it to Rs. 25,050 on the same grounds as stated above.

4. Similarly, in Appeal No. ST/10/02, the Commissioner in the review proceedings has enhanced to Rs. 17,985 under section 76 of the Finance Act as against a penalty of Rs. 250 imposed by the adjudicating authority.

5. Similarly, in appeal No. ST/15/02, the Commissioner in review proceedings has enhanced the penalty of Rs. 13,275 as against Rs. 4,500 under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, in addition to imposing penalty of Rs. 300 in terms of provisions to section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the delay in filing the Service Tax returns.

6. In all these cases, the Commissioner has reviewed on the ground that from the language used in the construction of the statute, there is no doubt from section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 stipulates certain minimum penalty in case there is an infraction of law. Such minimum penalty cannot be less than Rs. 100 per day of delay but may extend upto Rs. 200 per day. According to the review authority, the said provision puts a ceiling on the maximum penalty imposable as the amount of service tax payable. The adjudicating authority has misread the provisions while imposing the penalty. Since the Legislature has not inserted a pause by way of comma, after the words "rupees one hundred", per day used after the words "rupees two hundred" shall apply to the words "rupees one hundred" also. Therefore, the right interpretation would be to read the statute as rupees one hundred per day to rupees two hundred per day - rupees one hundred per day being the minimum penalty of rupees two hundred per day being the maximum. According to the Review authority, the adjudicating authority having come to the conclusion there is an infraction of law on the part of the assessee, he ought to have imposed a penalty of Rs. 100 per day at least, subject however, to the tax amount if the former is more. But, anything less than that, amounts to exercising discretion, which does not have the sanction of la