2014 (3) TMI 1008

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tional Commissioner (AR), ORDER Per: S.S. Kang Common issue is involved, therefore the appeals are being taken up together. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby a demand of service tax of Rs. 53,53,317/- is confirmed with interest and penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act are imposed.  The adjudicating authority dropped the penalty under S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nue.  Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued demanding service tax from February 2004 to April 2004 and the demand was confirmed and in that case also, the Tribunal decided in favour of the Revenue.  In respect of the two adjudication orders, the appellants in defiance to the adjudication orders, had not paid service tax.  The present show cause notice was issued on 24.1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g service tax on the same grounds, therefore we find that the allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of tax in the present proceedings is not sustainable.  In view of this, we find no infirmity in the impugned order and the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act is restored.  Consequentially, both the appeals are dismissed. (Dictated in Court)
Case laws, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X