9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n question the orders dated 10th January, 2012 and 20th March, 2012 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). 3. This case has a chequered history. However, shorn of all unnecessary details the basic facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that against an order dated 29th November, 2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the petitioner preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed a stay application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of service tax of Rs.2,51,790/-, interest and penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Tribunal after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 19th April, 2012, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Such order came to be challenged in the present petition by moving an amendment which was granted. 6. Mr. Hasit Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention to the provisions of section 78 of the Act which makes provision for "Penalty for suppressing value of taxable service" and more particularly to the first proviso thereto which lays down that where service tax determined under sub-section (2) of section 73, and interest payable thereon under section 75, is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of order of the Central Excise Officer determining such service tax, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under the said section shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal was not justified in directing the petitioner to deposit the entire amount of penalties in addition to the service tax and interest. In the light of the above provisions, this court is of the view that impugned order dated 10th January, 2012 passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified to the extent the petitioner has been directed to deposit the entire amount of the penalties under section 76 and 78 of the Act. 9. The petition is, therefore, allowed to the following extent. The order dated 20th March, 2012 rejecting the application for modification of the stay order is hereby quashed and set aside. The impugned order dated 10th January, 2012 shall stand modified to the extent that instead of depositing the entire amount of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
