2009 (9) TMI 258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Respondent. ORDER 1. This appeal is against the confirmation of penalty of Rs. 26,325 under section 76 of the Finance Act against the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that upon scrutiny of the records, it was noticed that the appellant had recovered service tax amounting to Rs. 26,325 for providing services of Consulting Engineer & Erection, Commissioning Service. The appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... est and asked the department several times that under which head this service taxes to be deposited. After their several request, the appellant was asked to deposit the said amount collected under the head of Services of Consulting Engineers & Erection, accordingly, the appellant deposited the service tax with the department. They are under bona fide belief that the interest is not to be deposited .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X