9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The assessees challenge the demand of service tax of Rs. 37,637/- together with interest and penalties imposed under Sections 76 & 78 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (sic) (Finance Act, 1994). The demand is on certain activities such as processing and assembling Jeans Buttons with metal inserts and nylon inserts, and processing Needle Threa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) had extended the benefit under Section 80 by accepting that the assessees had a reasonable cause for failure to pay service tax, no penalty should have been retained [Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty from the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority]. 3. Ld. SDR reiterates the finding of the authorities below. 4. I see merit in the submission of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied for the period post-16-6-2005 and this is an exercise which is to be carried out by the adjudicating authority to whom the case is remitted only for this purpose. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as above. 6. The Misc application raising additional ground that no demand can be sustained for the period prior to 16-6-2005 is allowed as it is based upon the decision of the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
