2010 (3) TMI 712

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Central Excise, whereby by reviewing the Adjudication Order, the Commissioner of Central Excise imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 and equal amount of the Service Tax in terms of sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Contention of the appellant is that the demand is for the period from 16-6-2005 to 31-3-2006 and during that period, the maximum penalty provided under section 77 was only Rs. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Finance Act,1994. In these circumstances, the impugned Order is not sustainable. 4. Contention of the revenue is that the appellant is providing taxable service and had not been registered with the revenue as provider of service and had not filed any return. Therefore, the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax which has not been paid during the relevant period. Hence the penalty is rightly impo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, where there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Further, section 80 of the Finance Act provides that no penalty is imposable on the assessee in case the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for failure to discharge the demand in terms of the provisions of either section 76 or 77 or 78 of the Finance Act. The contention of the appellant is that the appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X