TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Besides we do not find merit in the Revenue’s plea that penalty is necessarily to be imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, the said provision is prescribed in dealing circumstances where no penalty is specified elsewhere and the maximum penalty leviable at the relevant time under the said provision was maximum ₹ 5,000/-. In these circumstances, we do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,05,451/- along with interest of ₹ 16,21,950/- and 25% of the penalty of ₹ 17,26,363/-, the appellant is no more interested to pursue the appeal before this forum. Accordingly the appeal may be allowed to be withdrawn. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue has no objection. 4. In these circumstances, the appeal filed by M/s. Ahinsha Properties Ltd. (S.T. Appeal No. 376/10) is dismissed bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the facts and circumstances of the case chose to impose penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, which is equivalent to the Service Tax short paid by the Appellant. Further we find that M/s. Ahinsha Properties Ltd. has paid the entire amount of Service Tax, interest and penalty imposed by the Commissioner. In view of the payment of all dues we are of the opinion that the present case w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
