9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Choudhary 1. The appellant is a small scale manufacturer of excisable goods and is also engaged in performing job work. They usually carry out process of annealing the materials sent to them by their customers. During the course of audit for the financial year 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 some discrepancies were noticed and a spot memo was issued. Show Cause Notice has been issued on 22.10.2010 dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de the impugned order modified the adjudication order upholding the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 11,465/- alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty under Section 78. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the penalty imposed under Section 77 i.e. Rs. 2,75,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rused the appeal records. 5. I find that the demand of Rs. 2,56,032/- as confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority was modified to Rs. 11,465/- by the First Appellate Authority along with interest and penalty of equal amount as imposed in the adjudication order was also upheld by the First Appellate Authority. The appellant assessee is not disputing their liability to this extent. Their only grieva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of miss-statement or willful suppression of fact with an intent to evade payment of Service Tax. Further, the appellant has paid the entire amount of demand of Rs. 11,465/- alongwith applicable interest and 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 78, which has been appropriated in the adjudication order. Accordingly, I find that the provisions of Section 80(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 are applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
