2015 (12) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t of service tax by the appellant within the stipulated time-frame, is on account of any wilful suppression or mis-statement of facts, with intent to evade payment of service tax. Further, I find that the original authority in the adjudication order dated 2-5-2011 has refrained himself from imposing penalty under Section 78, by invoking provisions of Section 80 of the Act, which clearly demonstrat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r, AC (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appeal along with stay application has been filed against the impugned order dated 14-3-2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore, wherein penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 in the adjudication order has been upheld. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the period 2005-06 to 2006- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner (Appeals) by confirming the penal liability. Hence, the present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the ld. counsels of both the parties and perused the records. 4. I find that neither any specific allegations have been made in the show cause notice nor any findings recorded in the impugned order that non-payment of service tax by the appellant within the stipulated time-frame .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X