9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent. [Order]. - Appellant is providing service of mandap keeper. During the course of investigation it was found that the appellants were in the business of renting of Keshav Baug party plot which they hired on rental basis from the owners of the plot to various customers for functions. For each function appellant was charging Rs. 51,000/- from customers out of which receipt was issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the appellant. However written submission has been made by them. Heard the learned DR and considered the return submission and the records of the case. 3. Appellant is not contesting the demand for service tax and the interest. It was submitted that penalty under Section 78 may be reduced to 25% which has already been paid by them and penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Financ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they have paid the amount within thirty days of the actual receipt. It is not the case of the appellant that there was no service of the order as required under the law. It has been submitted and admitted that the order in original was served on the party plot in the month of August 2008 and during that period normally the party plot is not occupied and therefore the delay occurred. If the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... separate under two provisions and even if offences are committed in course of same transaction or arise out of same act, penalty imposable for ingredients of both the offences. In that case also penalty had been imposed under Section 76 and Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. In view of the above position, no relief from penalty under Section 76 can be given. No reasonable cause as required under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
