9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of simultaneous penalties. This apart, there appears to be error in the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the appellant did not deposit 25% of penalty within one month of its impositions. The Tribunal lost sight of the fact that adjudicating authority did not impose penalty and therefore, the assessee did not get an opportunity to deposit 25% of the penalty, within one month. - Consequently, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal and as to the rights of parties, the appeal is allowed, order dated 4-7-2013 [2013 (7) TMI 508 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], is set aside and the matter is restored to the CESTAT - Decided in favour of assessee. - STA No. 5 of 2014 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 3-11-2014 - Rajive Bhalla and Amit Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering taxable services did not get itself registered as a service provider. The appellant eventually got itself registered as a service provider in March, 2007 and deposited arrears of Service Tax and interest, on 2-5-2007. The adjudicating authority, however, issued a notice dated 3-4-2008, calling upon the appellant to show cause why penalty should not be imposed but eventually held that as Service Tax was deposited before issuance of the show cause notice and the appellant has furnished a bona fide explanation, penalty cannot be levied. 5. The revisional authority, however, issued a suo motu notice calling upon the appellant to show cause why penalty be not imposed. After affording an opportunity to the appellant, the revisional autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act, do not envisage imposition of simultaneous penalties. This apart, there appears to be error in the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the appellant did not deposit 25% of penalty within one month of its impositions. The Tribunal lost sight of the fact that adjudicating authority did not impose penalty and therefore, the assessee did not get an opportunity to deposit 25% of the penalty, within one month. 8. Consequently, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal and as to the rights of parties, the appeal is allowed, order dated 4-7-2013 [2014 (33) S.T.R. 176 (Tri. - Del.)], is set aside and the matter is restored to the CESTAT, for adjudication afresh. 9. Parties through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
