TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Notification which exempts service tax upto 21-6-2010, the activity undertaken by them would not have been leviable to service tax at all if the appellant was not to pay the tax with interest and 25% of the penalty. Needless to say that the question of imposition of a revised penalty would not arise in such a situation since it would amount to imposing penalty on assessees who pay the tax as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een ₹ 4,89,376/-. The appellant had deposited entire amount of service tax, interest and 25% of the service tax demanded towards penalty within one month of the date of passing the order. As a result of the Order-in-Revision, the appellant would be required to pay an amount of ₹ 1,15,933/- in terms of the order. 2. According to Notification No. 45/2010-S.T., dated 20-7-2010, the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was not to pay the tax with interest and 25% of the penalty. Needless to say that the question of imposition of a revised penalty would not arise in such a situation since it would amount to imposing penalty on assessees who pay the tax as and when demanded with interest without questioning the right to collect and without any delay. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
