9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the Commissioner is fit to be set aside - 361 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2008 - Justice S.N. Jha, President and M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) V. Vasudevan, Advocate for the Applicant. A. Jain, DR for the Respondent. [Order Per Justice S. N. Jha President] - The assessee has come in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 28.2.2005 enhancing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said Act. The appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the first part of the order in terms of which the appellant had been held liable to pay service tax of Rs.21,153/- but reduced the amount of penalty to Rs.1,500/- under Section 76. The penalty imposed under Section 77 of the Act was waived. The appellant approached this Tribunal in Appeal Nos.ST/149, 24,14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant is liable to pay service tax having been set aside by the Tribunal holding that the service provided by the appellant is not covered under "Business Auxiliary Service", penalty could not be imposed on the appellant, and therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner revising the amount of penalty must be set aside on this ground alone. 4. We find force in the submission of counsel. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
