2013 (4) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bsp; Per: M Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.15/2010 dated 8.01.2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Original authority confirmed service tax demand of Rs. 3,73,208/- along with interest relating to the period April 2002 to December 2005 and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 76 and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 and a penalty of Rs.7 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Finance Act while setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 and therefore, penalty under Section 78 should also be set aside. In this regard, he relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Technova Engineering Industries v s. CST, Chennai reported as [2011 (24) S.T.R. 467 (Tri.-Chennai)]. 5.1. Learned Superintendent (AR), furnishing a chart of events, submits that that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellants have paid service tax even for the period when they were liable to the benefit of small scale exemption applicable to them as a service provider. There is no such mitigating factor existing in the present case. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. It is not in dispute that there was investigation against the assessee in April 2002 and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X