9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to crossing the exemption limit of ₹ 10lakhs in the year 2011-12 and prior to that the appellant was working under exemption being the turnover remained below ₹ 10 lakhs. Therefore, no mala fide intention found on the part of the appellant. Moreover, the appellant, immediately after pointing out by the department regarding non-payment of service tax, discharged the service tax along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad wherein the Ld. Commissioner, maintaining the order of the original adjudicating authority except late fee which was kept in abeyance. In the present appeal, the appellant has contested imposition of penalty under Section 78 and late fee. 2. The fact of the case is that in the scrutiny of the financial records of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the demand of service tax, penalty under Section 78 of the Act. However, as regard late fee he held that this matter may be kept in abeyance until the returns are filed. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Ashok S. Gandhi, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that they have paid service tax and interest imm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that the appellant is not a regular defaulter on payment of service tax. The liability arose only due to crossing the exemption limit of ₹ 10lakhs in the year 2011-12 and prior to that the appellant was working und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
