9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or mis-declaration. Requirement of pre-deposit of penalty is waived. Stay granted. - ST/459 & 460/2011 - S/1480-1481/WZB/ADH/2011 - Dated:- 16-11-2011 - B S V Murthy, J. For Appellant: Shri Rahul Gajera, Adv. For Respondent: Shri R Srova, AR Per: B S V Murthy: On verification of the records of the appellant who is engaged in manufacture of excisable goods, it was found that the appellant had paid for providing Marketing Management Consultancy to Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay, who is a proprietor of the company based in USA. Since the service provider did not have office in India, the appellant was required to discharge the Service Tax liability as per the relevant provisions of Finance Act, 1994, which they failed to do. Conse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. He also submits that both the original adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority have not indicated as to what was the suppression of the facts or mis-declaration etc indulged by them for invocation of provisions of Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 for imposition of penalty. 3. Ld. Authorised Representative appearing for the Department submitted that the submission of the ld.Counsel that there is no reasoning given for imposition of penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994, is not correct and he drew my attention to Para 8 of the order of Commissioner (Appeals), and submitted that this issue was discussed by Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 8. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. I find myself in ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly this is a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit. Therefore, the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty is waived and the stay against its recovery during the pendency of the appeal is granted. 6. Before concluding, it has to be stated that the appellants have filed 2 appeals by mistake because the Commissioner (Appeals) had given 2 numbers for the order passed by him since he was considering 2 appeals - one filed by the Revenue and other filed by the appellant. Ld.Counsel fairly agrees that this was a mistake on their part. Therefore, it is held that as far as Appeal No.ST/460/2011 is concerned, it is to be treated as infructuous. 7. Appeal No.ST/460/2011 is dismissed. (Dictated Pronounced in Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
