9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeraiyan, Member (T), (for the Bench)]. - This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. ST/Alld/2007, dated 24-5-07 by which the order of the original authority was modified by setting aside the penalty of Rs. 51,570/- imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Heard the learned SDR. None appears for the respondents. However, there is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal the matter was remanded to the original authority vide order dated 10-1-06. On de novo adjudication the demand was considerably reduced to Rs. 51,570/- along with interest and penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 75A, a penalty of Rs. 51,570/- under Section 76 and a penalty of Rs. 51,570/- under Section 78 and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 77 were imposed. On appeal before the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase we do not find any intention on the part for evading service tax as no evidence to this effect has been relied upon. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld penalties under Sections 75A, 77 and 76 of the Finance Act. It appears that the respondents have not filed any appeal. The grounds of appeal do not disclose any material to support allegation of evasion of service tax intention to evade paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
