2015 (11) TMI 1252

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The appellant is in appeal against confirmation of penalty under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, vide the impugned order. 2. The brief facts are that during the course of audit of one M/s Mohan Shrirram Nimdeokar (Principal), it was observed by auditors from the Service Tax department that, the appellant has supplied the manpower to M/s Mohan Shriram Nimdeokar (Principal) for under taking t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lated at Rs. 2,66,760/- which were pre-deposited be not appropriated. Further penalty was proposed under Section 76, 77 and Section 78 of Finance Act. 3. The appellant contested the show-cause notice stating that it is not a case of deliberate default and the default occurred due to ignorance of the provisions of the service tax and further prayed for the benefit of Section 73 (3) as it had admit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... educed the penalty to the proportionate amount of tax under Section 78. Being aggrievd the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Heard the parties. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the appellant had neither charged service tax in its bills nor the same was paid by the principal. Further the stand taken by the appellant that the default was only due to lack of kno .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X