9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Peeran, Member (J) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) Shri M.S. Nagaraj, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.G. Dewalwar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against the Review Adjudication Order No. 34/2007 dated 12-3-2007, passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore. 2. The facts of case are that the appellants provide security service. Their Head Office is in Delhi. The Registration had been taken in Delhi. It was noticed that for the relevant period 2002-03 and 2003-04, the appellants had not discharged the service tax liability to the Department. Consequently, the lapse was pointed out by the Departmental officers. There was some correspondence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore issue of show cause notice, on their own. The fact that the service tax had not been paid due to inadvertence had been recorded by the Original authority. He also referred to the provisions in Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, in which there is a provision to even waive show cause notice when the assesssee pays the service tax liability along with interest on pointing out by the Department. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Sunitha Shetty [2006 (3) S.T.R. 404 (Kar.) = 2004 (174) E.L.T. 313 (Kar.)] wherein it has been held that once the original authority exercised his powers of discretion under Section 80 of the Finance Act, for waiver of penalties, the Revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the lower authority. Moreover even Section 73(3) provides waiver of show cause notice when the assessee pays the service tax liability immediately after it is pointed out. These situations had been examined by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Majestic Mobikes Pvt. Ltd. Ors. [Final Order No. 652 to 672/2008 dated 30th May 2008] [2008 (11) S.T.R. 609 (Tribunal)] and the Tribunal had given a finding that where the original authority exercised his powers under Section 80 of the Finance Act, after recording proper reasons, it cannot be reopened to enhance the penalty by the Commissioner in the Order-in- Revision. The present situation in the appeal is clearly covered by the aforesaid decision. In view of this, we are of the view that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
