2014 (7) TMI 824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nst the order in Appeal No. 26/ 2006(STC)AV/Commr.(A-IV)Ahd. dated November 16, 2006. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in providing services of mandap keeper services, without obtaining service tax registration and without payment of service tax for the period October 1999 to August 2004. It was the view of the Department that the appellant is having open lands which wer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... de the impugned order remanded the matter with regard to quantification of penalty under sections 76 and 77 to the original authority and reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000 under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant challenged the impugned order in this Tribunal with regard to interest and penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant is not represented and has req .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t, 1994, we find no reason to reduce the same as the appellant has failed to deposit the interest amount along with service tax before the issue of show-cause notice or within the time-limit prescribed under the Act. In such a case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly, we uphold the same and reject the appeal. Appeal is rejected.
Case laws, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X