9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri Atul Gupta, CS, for the appellant Shri R. K. Saini, Authorised Departmental Representative (DR) for the respondent. [Order per Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)] - Since both the appeals are against the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), same are heard together and being disposed of by a common order. Appeal No.ST/437/07 is filed by M/s. Dixon Electronics (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) and the Appeal No.ST/552/07 is filed by the respondent -CCE, Chandigarh. 2. The Appellants are engaged in repair of various electronic appliances manufactured by M/s. Samsung India Electronics Ltd. Maintenance Repair Services were brought into the serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the impugned order reduced a penalty under Section 78 to Rs.one lakh but maintained the penalty of Rs.100/- per day under Section 76. In appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the service tax has not been challenged. While the Appellants have filed the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order maintaining the penalty of Rs.100/- under Section 76 and penalty of Rs.one lakh under Section 78, the Revenue has filed appeal against reduction of penalty under Section 78 to Rs.one lakh. 3. Heard both the sides. 3.1 Shri Atul Gupta, CS, the learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant pleaded that there was bona fide reason for non-payment of service tax as the amount of Rs.35,000/- per month + reimbursement for providing free re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in 2008 (9) STR. 481 wherein the Tribunal held that there is no automatic waiver of penalty even if tax was paid before issue of SCN. Ld. DR also pointed out that though the levy had been introduced w.e.f. 1.7.03 even till 2005, the service tax on the amount received from SIEL for warranting repair was not being paid. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides. The Appellants were doing the repair job as authorized service centre of M/s. SIEL and the repair jobs were of two types one type of repair jobs were those where the amount for repair was being charges from the customers and on this amount, the service tax was being paid and this amount received from the customers and the service tax was paid on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
