2016 (5) TMI 899

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AV(66)05/2014 dated 15.4.2014 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lenging the said adjudication order the appellant filed appeal 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 appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the other hand, Shri V. Kaushik, Learned Assistant 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 Rs. 10lakhs in the year 2011-12 an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X