2007 (1) TMI 625

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondent. ORDER This is an appeal by the Department against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No. BR(41) 41/STC/2005 dated 25-10-2005. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellants have been providing security services and duty of ₹ 1,68,442/- for the period from 27-1-99 to 7-11-2003 was demanded and the same was paid on various dates and part of the amount was paid bef .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the present case. Accordingly he set aside the penalty imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. He reduced the penalty imposed u/s. 76 to ₹ 25,000/- from ₹ 1,68,442/-. 4. The department has not adduced valid grounds for enhancement of penalty than what has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Accordingly appeal by the Department is rejected. (Dictated and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X