9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Serve, Conoor the appellants herein M/s. Pearl Packaging, Conoor blended and packed tea for M/s. Indco Serve during the period 10-9-2004 to 28-2-2005. Adjudicating a show-cause notice served on M/s. Pearl Packaging, the original authority demanded an amount of Rs. 2,55,354/- being the service tax found to have been payable by the appellants for the impugned service under the category 'Business Aux ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry to hear these appeals arise before me today. 2. After hearing both sides I find that the appellants have already paid the service tax demanded in the order impugned in Appeal No. S/245/2008. As regards the other application I find that the Order-in-Revision was passed imposing penalty on the appellants for not discharging service tax liability by the appellant on an activity held to fall unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2005. The Order-in-Revision imposing a penalty found not warranted in the decision of the original authority is not sustainable in law. Moreover, prima facie, the service covered by the impugned orders was not liable to service tax during the material period. In the circumstances it is ordered that there shall be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the penalties imposed on the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
