9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. HEG Ltd. is in appeal against Order in Original No.05/Commr/STADJ/BPL-II/2012 dated 12.03.2012 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise whereunder the demand of service tax of Rs. 1,33,27,894/- has been upheld and an equivalent amount of penalty has also been confirmed against the appellant. 2. The appellant has been represented by Shri B.L. Narsimhan, the Ld. Advocate and the Revenue has been r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under wrong understanding. 4. Ld. DR for the Department reiterates the findings of the lower Revenue Authority. 5. We have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submissions of both the sides and the case laws cited. The appellant relies on the following case laws: i) CCE Vs. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (213) ELT 490. ii) CCE Vs. Dinesh Chandra R. Agarwal 2013 (31) STR 5 (Guj.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Indian exporter to cause sale of the goods exported by them were exempted. The appellant submits that they mistakenly mentioned the notification no. 32/2004-ST instead of 41/2007-ST to the Department. The appellant also submits that as soon as the department pointed out the mistake they undertook to pay the entire service tax dues. The appellant makes a mention that entire dues were deposited vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty on the appellant under section 78 of the Finance Act 1994. 6. Considering above discussions and the ratio of the decision in the case of Dinesh Chandra (Supra), ETA Engineering, Ltd. (supra) and British Airways Ltd. (Supra) the penalty imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act on the appellant by the impugned order is hereby set aside. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in above te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
