9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recipient. There was no disclosure of providing such services by the appellant and no service tax was paid by them. Learned advocate has not been able to give any justifiable reasons as to why the tax was not being deposited with the Revenue during the relevant period - there is no justification for setting aside of penalty, which already stands reduced to 25% - appeal dismissed - decided again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly proceedings stand initiated against them resulting in passing of the present impugned order confirming the demand of service tax to the tune of ₹ 5,53,530/- alongwith confirmation of interest. In addition penalty of identical amount was imposed under Section 78 of the Act with an option to the appellant to pay 25% of the penalty within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 01/03/2006. Subsequently, they approached the Hon ble High Court Allahabad who directed the Revenue to re-quantify the tax amount by extending the benefit of the Notification in question. The present impugned order stand passed by the Original Adjudicating Authority in terms of the Hon ble High Court directions confirming the demand to the ₹ 5,53,530/- and the same stands upheld by Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As such, he submits that the appellants having not paid the service tax during the relevant period, is guilty of mala fide, thus justifying invocation of penal provisions. 6. I find that there is no dispute about the facts. The demand confirmed vide the impugned order relates to the period October, 2007 to March, 2012. The same stands raised against the appellant as a result investigations made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
