9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35 (467-RAJ)/2009/COMMR (A)/RAJ, dt.12.11.09, to the extent that the said order-in-appeal has set aside the penalties imposed under Section 77 for non-filing of return for the period October 2004 to March 2006 and has set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 for delayed payment of Service Tax for the quarter July 2006 to September 2006. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The relevant paragraphs 6 & 7 from first appellate authority s order are reproduced below:- 6. The first allegation is that the appellants have not filed returns for the period from (i) Ocober, 2004 to March, 2005, (ii) April, 2005 to September 2005 and (iii) October, 2005 to March, 2006. In this regard, I find that during the course of personal hearing, they have produced photocopies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of interest of Rs.909/- does not arise. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned order of the lower authority to this extent and accordingly set aside. 7. It can be seen from the above reproduced paragraphs that the first appellate authority has specifically indicated in Para 6 that the assessees had produced the photocopies of the ST-3 return filed with the lower autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re no services rendered during the relevant period, there cannot be any demand of Service Tax liability and there cannot be any delayed payment of Service Tax thereof. In view of this, the findings recorded by first appellate authority as reproduced hereinabove are correct and does not warrant any interference. 9. The appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be rejected. The appeal is reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
