9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch before the issuance of show cause notice. In the absence of evidence or basis of suppression on the part of the appellant in the revision order and there being no such finding in the Order-in-Original imposition of penalty on the appellant is not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/1012/2010 - A/60939/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 12-5-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri P. S. Bedi, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Harvinder Singh, AR ORDER Per: Devender Singh The brief facts of the case are that the appellants M/s. Sachdeva Sugar Co., are engaged in providing Business Auxiliary Services to M/s.Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Karnal by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty on the appellant under section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act giving the benefit under Section 80 of the Act. On revision of the order under Section 84, the Commissioner held that the appellants were not entitled for the benefit granted under Section 80 and the penalty under Section 77 Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. Learned Advocate submits that they are only contesting penalties. He contended that the service tax on the commission agent service had just been imposed from 09.07.2004 and they were under the bonafide belief that the bargain discounts given to the dealers were not included in the assessable value as they were deducting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that in the absence of evidence or basis of suppression on the part of the appellant in the revision order and there being no such finding in the Order-in-Original imposition of penalty on the appellant is not justified. In this context, I rely on the judgment of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Darmania Enterprises (supra) wherein it has been held as follows:- 3. It is apposite to notice that against similar order dated 31-3-2008, passed by the Tribunal in the case of sister concern of the assessee-respondent, namely M/s. Darmania Telecom, Gurdaspur, the revenue has also preferred an appeal, bearing S.T.A. No. 6 of 2008 [2009 (14) S.T.R. 145 (P H)] . The aforementioned appeal came up for consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
