2008 (2) TMI 346

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Order per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)] - Appellant is aggrieved with imposition of personal penalty of Rs.21,000/- under the provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. As per the facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the job work of coating of belts for wrist watches, which activity is liable to service tax under the category of business auxiliary services. The service t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ding their activities as to whether it is covered under manufacturing activities or falls under the category of Business Auxiliary Service, under Service Tax. I find that the plea of appellant regarding confusion of their activities is having force to lead towards the waiver of penalty. Further, there is no mala fide intention to delay in payment of service tax as they have already paid the servic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rest.  He has also accepted the appellant's stand that there was some doubt and confusion as regards their liability to pay service tax.  However, in spite of observing so, he has imposed penalty to Rs.20,000/- on them. As such, I find that the impugned order is self-contradictory. 4. The provisions of Section 80 are to the effect that if the assessee proves that there was a reasonable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X