2019 (4) TMI 729

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central Excise, Mumbai. 2. The facts of the case, in brief are that the appellant was registered with the Service Tax authorities for rendering taxable service under the category of "site formation and clearance, excavation, earth moving and demolition services", def .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he appellant had paid the entire amount of service tax before issuance of the adjudication order. Hence, it is submitted that imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act is not justified. 5. The ld. A.R. for Revenue has reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 6. I find that the appellant had paid the entire amount of service tax and is not disputing confirmation of such amo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... x, Chennai - 2018-TIOL-2228-CESTAT-MAD, in identical situation, has set aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Act. 8. In view of the above discussion, the demand of service tax along with interest and penalty imposed under Section 70 and 77 of the Act are upheld. As the appellant is not disputing the demand of service tax, which has already been paid, the penalty under Section 78 of the Act i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X