9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit. The authorities below have confirmed imposition of penalties under Section 76 and 78 as well. In view of several decisions it is clear that there is a discretion available, even prior to amendment of Section 78 for not imposing penalties under Sections 76 & 78 simultaneously. We therefore set aside imposition of penalty under Section 76 and confirm penalty under Section 78. Section 78 also requires that the assessee should be informed of the facility of remitting service tax and interest along with 25% of penalty within 30 days towards compliance of liability - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No.866 of 2010 - Final Order No. 52159/2015 - Dated:- 9-7-2015 - Mr. G. Raghuram, President and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant. The assessee also failed to support its claim of having received only a part of the billed amount. 3. In the circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner , Central Excise and Service Tax, Lucknow vide adjudication order dated 18.5.2009 confirmed service tax demand of ₹ 1,92,373/-, apart from interest and penalties as specified therein. 4. The appellant thereupon an preferred appeal. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Lucknow, vide the impugned order dated 12.3.2010 found no reason to interfere with the primary adjudication order and dismissed assessees appeal. Hence the assesee before us in this appeal. 5. The notice of hearing of this appeal scheduled today was dispatched to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivity) was reflected in its financial statements and that a construction agreement in support of this fact is attached with the present appeal. 8. The appellant additinally pleads that service tax is leviable on the actual amount of consideration received, not on the consideration billed when it not received from the recipient; that since appellant was under a bonafide belief as to its immunity from the liability to tax, the benefit under Section 80 should have been extended and no penalty imposed. 9. Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the primary and the impugned appellate order and the grounds of appeal, we find no case for interference with the classification of the service as security service. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
