9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elating to the period from May, 2006 to September, 2006 and the same was confirmed by the original authority along with interest. A sum of Rs. 1,06,253/- was imposed as penalty under Section 76 of the Act. The appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that inasmuch as they are referred to BIFR, they are not in a position to pay Service Tax and penalty. Commissioner(Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide order dated 28-11-07 along with interest. A sum of Rs. 1,06,253/- was imposed as penalty under Section 76 of the Act. However, dispute regarding credit of Service Tax was decided in favour of the appellants by the original authority. Before the original authority also, there was no dispute about the liability to pay the Service Tax as revealed from the finding of the original authority which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts and circumstances of the case into account, felt that penalty imposed is harsh and accordingly reduced the penalty from Rs. 1,06,253/- to Rs. 25,000/-. However, she upheld the portion of the order relating to demand of Service Tax and interest. Learned SDR submits that there can be no dispute about liability to pay the Service Tax and interest as the same stands admitted before the origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the Commissioner (Appeals) has thought it fit to invoke the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, I deem it appropriate to give full benefit under the provision of Section 80 and accordingly set aside the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- which sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus appeal is allowed to the extent of sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
