9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent Mr. P.G. Chacko, J. On a perusal of the records and hearing both sides, I have found strong prima facie case for the appellant against the penalty imposed on them under Section 76 of the Finance Act 1994. I have also found that the simple issue arising in this case is already covered by a judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, after dispensing with pre-deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- per day of default or at the rate of 2% of service tax, whichever is higher. An appeal filed by the assessee against this penalty came to be dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant quantifies the penalty at Rs. 63,800/- for purposes of waiver and stay. 3. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is CCE & ST, LTU, Bangalore Vs. Adecco Flexione Workfo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the facts of the instant case are similar to those of the case considered by the Hon'ble High Court. Hence the Hon'ble High Court s ruling has to be followed. 4. Apart from the above, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, an explanation added to Section 73(3) of the Finance Act 1994 by Parliament vide the Finance Act 2010 consolidates the appellant s case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; 39b[Explanation 2.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no penalty under any of the provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder shall be imposed in respect of payment of service tax under this sub-section and interest thereon.] 5. In view of the law and case law cited before me, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. 6. The stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
