9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een imposed upon them. This plea is not acceptable for the reason that the service tax amount was paid only after it was pointed out by the department that the assessees were liable to pay the tax – However, CESTAT found no reason to interfere with the impugned order under which penalty has been reduced based on various factors such as payment of service tax before issue of notice and the submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05] 1 STT 100 (Chennai-CESTAT) and the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Union of India v. Aakar Advertising Aakar Communication [2008] 15 STT 256 to support their contention that the penalty cannot be less than Rs. 100 per day and cannot exceed Rs. 200 per day (penalty of Rs. 5,000 in terms of section 76 is less than Rs. 100 per day as the period during which the assessees fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vested in the authorities. The above decision has been followed by the Tribunal in CCE v. Equator Property Managers (P.) Ltd. [2008] 16 STT 31 (Mumbai-CESTAT) to uphold the reduction of penalty by Commissioner (Appeals). The same view has been expressed in the case of Opus Media Entertainment v. CCE [2008] 16 STT 39 (New Delhi-CESTAT) and CCE C v. Shree Soap Chemical Ind. [2008] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
