9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce President]- Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby demand of Service Tax of Rs.1,71,569/- was confirmed and penalties were imposed. The appellants are not challenging the demand. 3. The appellants are only challenging the imposition of penalty under Section 76 and under Section 78 of Finance Act. 4. The contention is that the appellants are pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even before passing of the adjudication order. The contention is that that the appellants were under the bona fide belief that they are not liable to pay Service Tax as in view of the Notification No. 25/2004-ST dated 10.9.04 which provides exemption from payment of Service Tax in respect of production of goods on behalf of the client it was only with effect from 10.9.04 the job worker was made l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax demanded in the show-cause notice. The amount which was confirmed in the adjudication order, was paid even prior to passing of the adjudication order along with interest, therefore, they have proving that there was reasonable cause for non-deposit of Service Tax in time. 6. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellants are not challenging the impugned order on merits regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided after 10.9.04. The appellant paid the amount of Rs.1,71,569/- along with interest at their own before issuance of adjudication order. The adjudicating authority after taking into consideration the issue raised by the appellant confirmed the same amount which has already been deposited by the appellant. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that there was any willful, mis-stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
