2018 (9) TMI 178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f suppression as the appellant was aware about the Service Tax law and despite that they have not complied with the payment of Service Tax - demand invoking extended period justified. Penalty u/s 76 78 - Held that:- It is a settled law that penalty under both the section should not be imposed simultaneously, accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 76 is set aside - the penalty imposed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... riod 2005 to 2006. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant, however on perusal of record. We find that the appellant is not disputing about the taxability of service. However, they made submission that the demand for the extended period is not sustainable as there was no suppression of fact. They also prayed for waivers of penalties imposed under Section 76,77 78. 3. Shri S.N.Gohil, Ld. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reason that it is appellant who should aware of their taxable value crossing the exemption limit and they should have come forward for the registration. Therefore, in view of fact that initially taken registration and surrendered the same is more reason to establish the charge of suppression as the appellant was aware about the Service Tax law and despite that they have not complied with the paym .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X