2014 (10) TMI 520

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,11,238/- and penalty of identical amount, we proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as we find that the submissions raised by the appellant have not been taken note of by the original adjudicating authority. 2. The appellant is a registered Service Tax provider under the category of Mandap Keeper and was filing the quarter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioner did not take the said plea of the appellant into consideration and by simply observing that they have paid less duty confirmed the same along with imposition of penalty and confirmation of interest. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) taking into consideration the above plea of the appellant observed that notification no.12/2001-ST dated 20.12.2001 was available only upto 31.3.2002 whereas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation do not carry any conditions, as is clear from the latest notification no.8/2004-ST dated 9.7.2004 even the earlier notifications. 8. For all the reasons discussed above, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Asstt. Commissioner for fresh decision after taking into account the appellants contention of availability of various notifications in question, r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X