2008 (12) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d - appellant deposited a portion of the tax before passing of the adjudication order & he is a small entrepreneur so penalty u/s 76 is reduced - demand of tax & interest upheld – since appellant provided the service to a semi-Government body, penalties u/s 78 is not warranted - 197 of 2007 - ST/410/2008(PB) - Dated:- 1-12-2008 - Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) and Mr. P.K. Das, Member (J .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... penalty of Rs.200 per day under section 76 of Finance Act, 1994, Rs.1,000/- under section 75A and 77 and equal amount of tax under section 78 of the Act. Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order in so far as the penalty under section 76 was reduced to Rs.100 per day. 3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellant entered into agre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... peals), it appears that on scrutiny of the documents, the non-payment of tax was detected. It is also noted that the appellant provided the service to a semi-Government body. So the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act,1994 is not warranted. Regarding imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Act, it is revealed from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant contended .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X