9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant had suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of service tax - finding has no basis - order not legal - order set aside and the appeal allowed - ST/519 OF 2008 - 610 OF 2010 - Dated:- 19-2-2010 - P. KARTHIKEYAN, JJ. ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the Adjudication Order No. 20/2008, dated 11-7-2008, passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 78 of the Act. He imposed penalty of Rs. 100 per day till 17-4-2006 and at the rate of Rs. 200 per day from 18-4-2006 subject to a ceiling of 2 per cent of the tax per month under section 76 of the Act. Penalty equal to the service tax demand has been imposed under section 78 of the Act. 2. In the appeal and during hearing, the appellants have submitted that the original authority had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed penalties as per sections 76 and 78 of the Act. The original authority had imposed penalties of only Rs. 500 each under these sections. The penalties are imposed on a finding that the appellant had suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. This finding has no basis. I find that the impugned order is therefore not legal. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
