9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and penalties. Held that- the appellant is a small entrepreneur, engaged in the business of courier service. The appellant has already deposited the tax with interest before issue of adjudication order. It is seen that there was confusion regarding the levy of tax. Hence, the penalties imposed on the appellant are not warranted. Thus, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the penalties - ST/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest in 2005 itself. He also submits that the service tax demand is Rs. 21,281/- whereas the interest alone came to Rs. 21,909/-. The appellant has a very small business and was functioning as an extended arm of M/s. Poonam Courier and he was also required to pay 50% of his revenue to M/s. Poonam Courier. He also submits that appellant was not maintaining any record whatsoever and he was able to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaipur as reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 283 (Tri.-Del.) = 2004 (170) E.L.T. 417 (Tribunal), in support of his contention that a liberal view may be taken as regards penalty. 3. On the other hand, the learned SDR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the appellant took more than 2 years to pay the service tax with in: after issue of show cause notice. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant is a small entrepreneur, engaged in the business of courier service. The appellant has already deposited the tax with interest before issue of adjudication order. It is seen that there was confusion regarding the levy of tax. Hence, the penalties imposed on the appellant are not warranted." 5. I find myself in agreement with the above View and having regard to the facts and circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
