9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 78, there was no need to impose penalty had been imposed under section 78, there was no need to impose penalty under section 76. Held that- set aside the both penalty u/s 76 and 78. - ST/231 AND 241 OF 2008 - 1235 AND 1236 OF 2009 - Dated:- 4-9-2009 - M.V. RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M. Ravi Rajendran for the Appellant. Dayanand for the Respondent. ORDER 1. These two appeals are filed against the very same Order-in-Appeal No. 99/2008, dated 28-2-2008. Appeal No. ST/231/08 is filed by the revenue while Appeal No. ST/241/08 is filed by the assessee. Since the issue involved in this case is arising out of the very same order-in-appeal, both the appeals are disposed by a common order. 2. The relevant facts of the case are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 76 is set aside. The appeal is disposed of accordingly." Revenue is aggrieved by the portion of the order wherein the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed under section 76 while the appellant is in appeal against the imposition of penalty under sections 77, 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the equivalent penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority under section 78 and as upheld by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) needs to be set aside. It is his submission that they are not challenging the demand of Service Tax as they have already paid the Service Tax and the interest thereof. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority and ld. Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gross amount has to be considered for the purpose of discharge of Service Tax will apply in this case as the appellant is only raising invoice for consolidated sum. In view of this, the Service Tax liability as has been adjudged and upheld by the first appellate authority is correct and hence no interference is called for in those findings. 6. As regards the penalty, I find that the appellant was covered under Service Tax net from 1-5-2006 and the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 27-4-2007. Appellant/assessee while replying to the show-cause notice has been taking a stand that he being an individual was not aware of the provisions of the Service Tax law and was not well-versed. He also put the plea before the lower authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
