9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e arising out of Order-in-Review issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur which enhanced the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act on the appellant. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant registered himself as a service provider under the category of photography service provider in 2001. After getting himself registered the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7500 The appellants discharged the penalties imposed on them under Section 76. The Commissioner under the power vested with him under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1944 reviewed the orders of the Asst. Commissioner and came to the conclusion that the penalty imposable on the appellant under Section 76 should be as under:- Appeal No. Penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst any assessee who voluntarily paid the service tax and got himself registered up to 30-10-2004. He relies upon the decision in the case of C.C.E., Bhopal v. Bharat Security Services Worker's Cont., as reported at 2005 (188) E.L.T. 454 (Tri. ,Del.). He concedes that the amount of penalty as imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 76 has attained finality as the appellants have not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority. The appellants have rightly relied upon Extra Ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme announced by the Government on 2-9-2004. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Security Services Worker's Cont. (supra) squarely applies in this case. The Tribunal in that case in para 4 as held has under:- "Revenue filed these appeals against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
