9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant during the relevant period was duly registered with the Service Tax Department under the category of 'Tour Operator Service'. 2. During the period October, 2007 to March, 2012, on the basis of the scrutiny of the records from the service recipient i.e. M/s IFFCO Phulpur, Allahabad, it was found that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 76 and 77 imposed by the Original Adjudicating Authority. The present order is impugned before the Tribunal. 4. Learned advocate Shri K.K. Srivastava appearing for the appellant submits that they are not disputing the confirmation of service tax and interest and the only prayer is that the penalty imposed upon them be set aside. Further elaborating on his arguments he submits that o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... untering the argument learned A.R. Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh appearing for the Revenue submits that the service tax confirmed against the assessee belongs to the period October, 2007 to March, 2012. The demand for the first time was confirmed against them vide Order-in-Original dated 12/02/2013. As such, the said confirmation of demand without extending the benefit of Notification No.01/2006-ST has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... why the tax was not being deposited with the Revenue during the relevant period. As such, I find no justification for setting aside of penalty, which already stands reduced to 25%. Inasmuch as the appellants have deposited the entire service tax alongwith interest and 25% penalty, I uphold the imposition of 25% of penalty. 7. In view of the above, appeal is rejected. (Dictated & Pronounced in C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
