2014 (3) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the penalties under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, but he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 25000/- on the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is a franchise of Airtel and providing mobile services. During the course of investigation, it was found that the respondent is not registered dealer with the service tax depart .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing the fact that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on various judicial pronouncements of the Tribunal, where the benefit of Section 80 was given to the assessee for their act which shows that assessee was not having a malafide intention to evade payment of service tax. In this case also, the respondent have said that they were not having knowledge that they are required to pay service tax as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X