TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and gave them option to pay penalty of 25% in the order in Revision. However, he did not impose any penalty under Section 76. Further, ld. Commissioner in his order in Revision has imposed a penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994. Undisputedly, ld. Commr. (Appeals) vide his order dated 1-6-2012 has set aside the total demand. The Department did not produce an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged that they have not paid the Service Tax to the tune of ₹ 2,66,333/-. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against them along with proposal for penalty. The Lower Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 31,298/- out of total demand of ₹ 2,66,333/- along with interest under Section 75 and already imposed a penalty of equal amount under Section 78. However, he gave the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of demand of ₹ 31,298/-. The contention of the appellant is that against the appeal filed by them, ld. Commr. (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal No. 161/2012, dated 1-6-2012 has dropped the demand of Service Tax of ₹ 31,298/-. The contention is that once the demand itself does not survive, the penalty is not imposable. In support of their contention they have placed reliance on Larger Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
