9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- per week instead of Rs. 100/- per day. The notice also proposed imposition of penalty under Section 78. A fresh adjudication order was passed enhancing the penalty to Rs. 6,12,894/- @ Rs. 100/- for every day during the period of delay in payment of tax and dropping proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 78. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the enhancement of penalty on the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 27-1-2010 - Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President REPRESENTED BY: Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR, for the Appellant. S/Shri J. Shankararaman and S. Krishnanandh , Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order]. - In this case, vide Order-in-Original No. 21/2003 dated 18-11-2003 service tax together with interest was demanded and a penalty of Rs. 57,200/- was imposed under the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f penalty of Rs. 57,200/- was an error apparent on the face of the record requiring correction/rectification under Section 74; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that the figure of Rs. 57,200/- is not based upon penalty of Rs. 100/- per week as the numb of weeks during which the payment of service tax was delayed was 160 in which case the penalty which could hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
