9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y petition are directed against Order-in-Original No. 07/ST/2013/C dated 21.02.2013. 2. The appellant M/s Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC in short), Nagpur is collecting marketing fee under Section73 of the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. The issue is whether APMC is liable to pay Service Tax on the marketing fee collected by them. A demand of Rs. 90, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is concerned, he submits that the appellant does not contest this liability and they have discharged this liability along with interest and, therefore, imposition of penalty on this activity is not warranted. Accordingly, he pleads for grant of stay and allowing the appeal. 4. The ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue confirms that as regards the demand of Rs. 90,32,114/- i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsequently, interest and equivalent amount of penalty imposed are also not sustainable. 5.3 With regards the demand of Rs. 9,213/- is concerned, since the appellant has discharged the Service Tax liability along with interest, the question of imposing penalty for late payment does not arise. Therefore, the imposition of penalty is not warranted. 6. Accordingly, we allow the appeal. Stay petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
