9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of pre deposit of penalty u/s 76 contending that it was a small service provider facing financial hardship, and simultaneously imposition of penalty u/s 76 and 78 was not correct. Held that - the plea of assesese not correct but due to financial hardship to waive some amount for pre deposit. - ST/780/2009-SM - 670/2009-SM(BR) - Dated:- 11-12-2009 - RAKESH KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER S.C. Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 500 under section 77 and penalty under section 76 of Rs. 100 per day for the period of failure to pay service tax up to 17-4-2006 and at the rate of Rs. 200 per day for remaining period. The appellant, within 30 days of the issue of the order-in-original, paid the entire service tax demand along with interest and also penalty equal to 25 per cent of the service tax demand in accordance wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in spite of financial hardship, the entire amount of service tax along with interest and reduced penalty as per the provisions under proviso to section 78 of the Finance Act was paid within 30 days of the order-in-original; that simultaneous imposition of penalty under section 78 as well as section 76 is not correct and that in this regard, he relies upon the Tribunal's judgment in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant, is only in respect of stay order which cannot be the precedent. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no case for full waiver for the requirement of pre-deposit as the legal position on this issue is very clear. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The only point of dispute in this case is as to whether simultaneous penalty c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
