9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aborty, A.C. (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER Revenue as well as M/s. Ahinsha Properties Ltd. filed Appeals challenging the Order-in-Original No. 11/Commr/ST/Kol/2010-11, dated 24-8-2010. 2. The appellant, M/s. Ahinsha Properties Ltd. (S.T. Appeal No. 376/10) vide their letter dated 13-5-2013 has requested for withdrawal of the appeal. Shri Sushil Kr. Goyal, ld. F.C.A. reiterated the said r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 6. The ld. advocate for the Respondent M/s. Ahinsha Properties Ltd. drew our attention to second proviso to Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994 which reads as under :- Provided further that where the assessee has paid the amount as prescribed under this rule for delayed submission of return, the proceedings, if any, in respect of such delayed submission of ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the maximum penalty leviable at the relevant time under the said provision was maximum Rs. 5,000/-. In these circumstances, we do not find substance in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue as well as by the assessee are dismissed.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
