9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty liability and on being pointed out by the Revenue, paid the Service Tax even prior to the issuance of show cause notice except for an amount of Rs.10,086/- The appellants are not contesting the said confirmation but prayed for reduction in quantum of penalty.Separate penalties under the Sections 76 and 78 for the same offence is not justified - Accordingly, set aside the penalties imposed u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position of penalties under Section 76,77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. As per the facts on record, the appellant is engaged in providing the services relating to promotion and marketing of the services provided by M/s. Bharti Cellular Ltd., a company providing mobile telephone services under the brand AIRTEL. The appellants are working as an agent for promoting and marketing of the post ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey are not disputing the confirmation of Service Tax of Rs.55,286/-. However, their grievance is that while imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Act equivalent to the tune of Service Tax confirmed, they have not been given an option to pay 25% of the penalty within a period of 30 days. He submits that according to the settled law, such an option can be extended by the higher appellate forum. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Separate penalties under the Sections 76 and 78 for the same offence is not justified. We accordingly, set aside the penalties imposed under Section 76, since we are upholding penalty under Section 78 with modification. As no option has been given to the appellant to deposit the 25% of penalty imposed under Section 78 within a period of 30 days from pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
