2012 (9) TMI 703

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... D N Panda: Ld. Counsel says consequent upon the first appellate order there was Service Tax demand of Rs. 10,83,975/-. During pendency of the appeal the appellant has already deposited Rs. 12,14,786/-. He prays that if concession in penalty reducing that to 25% of the service tax demand is granted that shall bring an end to the litigation. 2. Considering the averment as aforesaid is fair and rea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order for appropriation of the amount aforesaid, that may be directed towards penalty under section 78 only and there should not be simultaneous penalty under section 76. When we perused the impugned order there is nothing adversity under section 76 is patent. Therefore, there shall be no levy of penalty under section 76 but penalty shall be payable under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X