1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against penalties imposed on them under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Today there is no representation for the appellant despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment.

2. Perused the records and heard the learned Superintendent (AR).

3. In a show-cause notice issued on 14.3.2008, the department demanded a total amount of Rs.1,11,809/- from the assessee towards service tax and education cess for the period from January to October 2006 under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, proposed to appropriate earlier payment of the said amount towards such demand, demanded interest on tax under Section 75 of the Act and proposed penalties under Sections 76 to 78 of the Act. The assessee contested the penal proposals mainly on the ground that they did not have any intent to evade payment of service tax and that the non-filing of returns and non-payment of service tax were merely on account of a bona fide mistake. They also submitted that, as the entire amount of service tax had been paid prior to issue of the show-cause notice, no penalty was imposable on them. After giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the original authority imposed penalties of Rs. 1,11,809/-, Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 1,11,809/- on the assessee under Sections 76, 77 and 78 respectively, apart from confirming the demand of service tax and education cess against them and appropriating their payments towards such demand. In an appeal preferred by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Section 76 penalty and sustained the rest of the order-in-original. In the present appeal filed by the assessee against the appellate Commissioner's order, there is no challenge towards the demand of service tax and education cess, nor towards the demand of interest thereon. The grievance of the appellant is entirely against the penalties imposed on them under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act. Though, in para 6 of the grounds of appeal, the appellant has stated that the show-cause notice is barred by limitation and that "application of extended period of limitation would not arise on the facts and circumstances of the case" no serious challenge against the demand of service tax is forthcoming. As a matter of fact, the appellant, in column No. 8 of the ST-5 Form, states thus : "The issue involved is with regard to levy of penalty and interest under Sections 75, 77 and 78". In the conclusive part of the memorandum of appeal, the appellant prays for setting aside the penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act. In other words, the appellant is not serious even about interest on tax. As regards the penalties imposed on them, the prayer of the appellant is that their bona fide mistake may be excused and these penalties be "deleted". However, there is no explanation as to the so-called bona fide mistake. However, it appears from the tenor of the assessee's appeal that, as they discharged their duty liability without waiting for show-cause notice, the imposition of penalties on them is not justifiable.

4. The learned Superintendent (AR) submits that there is no evidence of payment of interest on tax by the appellant and that, in their stay application, they had clearly stated that they had "no sufficient moneys in order to pay the interest and penalty levied". It is further pointed out that the stay application had, in fact, prayed for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and interest. Be that as it may, the appellant admitted their tax liability and voluntarily discharged it in the wake of investigations launched by the department. The show-cause notice dated 14-3-2008 had alleged "suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax" in the context of invoking the extended period of limitation prescribed under Section 73(1) of the Act as also of proposing penalty under Section 78 of the Act. By admitting the tax liability for the extended period of limitation, the appellant was