2018 (9) TMI 1443

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... de penalty imposed under Section 76. It is also a fact that the appellants, after registration with the Department did not part with any information, which was being repeatedly asked for by the Revenue and did not discharge any service tax liability - imposition of penalty justified - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - APPEAL No.ST/270/2012-CU[DB] - ST/A/71990/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... against the order passed by the Original Adjudicating Authority, Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the assesee s stand that intellectual property services were introduced in this statute w.e.f. 10.09.2004 and no demand can be confirmed for the period prior to the said date. He also accepted the assessee s stand that a part of the service relatable to providing Inspection and Certification Servic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bona fide doubt in the mind of the assessee as regards their obligation to discharge service tax. As such he submits that in the absence of any mala fide, the penalty should not be imposed. 5. Countering the above argument, Shri Pawan Kumar Singh appearing for the Revenue draws our attention to the fact that appellants got themselves registered with the Service Tax Department on 23.11.2006 but .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X