9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in providing security agency services to various PSUs. Further, there is no profit motive and business objective of the appellant is rendering the security agency service and they have paid the service tax after the adjudication order was passed and the prayer in the present appeal in only for dropping the demand of interest and penalty imposed under various provisions of the Finance Act. The penalty imposed vide the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore, by resorting to Section 80, the penalty imposed by the impugned order waived, as there was no intention to evade payment of service tax by the appellant - As far as liability to pay interest is concerned, I hold that the appellants are liable to pay the interest as held b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . A show-cause notice was issued to them demanding service tax of ₹ 16,41,233/- on the differential value of ₹ 1,54,53,773/-, interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and proposing to impose penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The lower authority after following the due process of law has confirmed the demand of service tax, interest and imposed equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. On behalf of the appellant, Shri T. Rajkumar, CTGD (Authorised Representative) appeared and submitted that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y engaged in providing security agency services to various PSUs. Further, I find that there is no profit motive and business objective of the appellant is rendering the security agency service and they have paid the service tax after the adjudication order was passed and the prayer in the present appeal in only for dropping the demand of interest and penalty imposed under various provisions of the Finance Act. Further, I find that the various decisions relied upon by the appellant have given the benefit under Section 80 of the Finance Act and dropped the penalty. In the case of CISF vs. CCE reported in 2014 (35) STR 845, the Division Bench of this Tribunal in para 5 - 6 has held as under: "5. It is evident from the above observations that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
