9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. T.K. Jayaraman, Technical Member. - This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 143/2006-ST, dated 20-6-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin. 2. Revenue proceeded against the appellant rendering services of "Travel Agent" for payment of Service Tax. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 5,97,850 alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid entire amount of Rs. 5,97,850. Hence, it was urged that harsh penalty is not warranted. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had given a finding that the appellant remitted the service tax only after the department detected evasion. Therefore, they are liable to penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act. The appellant relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eavy penalty, fine, and interest alleging evasion. There is no proof of evasion except by a version of the appellants' own staff that due to stiff competition, the firm used to leave out high value tickets like those to Europe etc. The appellant was having no intention to evade Service Tax. 6. The learned Departmental Representative stated that it is very clear from the records that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was paid before the adjudication. He requested for taking a lenient view as the penalties imposed are very harsh. He challenged the levy of interest also. As the entire amount of service tax has been paid partly before the issue of show-cause notice and partly before the adjudication order was issued, imposition of heavy penalties is not warranted. However, in terms of section 75 of the Finance Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
