9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hom the said Mandap was rented. Apart from that, this being a factual position, cannot be allowed to be raised at the second Appeal stage. Penalty - HELD THAT:- Admittedly it is a case of clandestine activity and not a case of any legal interpretation of provisions - Penalties set aside. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 55115, 55374 of 2014 [DB] - ST/A/50465-50466/2019-CU[DB] - Dated:- 27-3-2019 - MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, CA for the Appellant Shri G.R. Singh, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER ARCHANA WADHWA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 76 as also under Section 77. No penalty was imposed under Section 78 of the Act. 4. The said Order of the Deputy Commissioner was appealed against by the appellant as also by the Revenue. Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the assessee s Appeal by observing that they have not contested the demand and have accepted that they were liable to pay service tax. By a separate Order, the Appellate Authority also allowed the Revenue s Appeal and imposed penalty of identical amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act. Hence, the present two Appeals by the assessee. 5. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has challenged the impugned orders by submitting that the Mandap Keeper Services being provided from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and after going through the impugned orders, we note that undisputedly, the appellant never brought the fact of renting of Mandap to a third person. On the contrary, before both the authorities below, they accepted their tax liability and only sought some time to deposit the same, which, in fact, was also deposited by them. Even at this stage, the appellants have not been able to show prima facie also that the Mandap in question was leased out by them to a third person. On specifically being asked, learned advocate has not been able to disclose the name of the third person to whom the said Mandap was rented. Apart from that, this being a factual position, cannot be allowed to be raised at the second Appeal stage, as rightly contented by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
