9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the Order-in-Original confirming demand of Service Tax of Rs. 96,617/- for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09 and also ordered recovery of interest under Section 75, penalty under Section 76 upto 16.5.2008 and penalty under Section 78 as well as under Section 77. 2. The facts are that the appellant is an advertising agency. During audit of their off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been issued for imposition of penalty in terms of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. The learned AR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. I have gone through the facts of the case. From the appeal papers as well as the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order, I find that the appellant claimed before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the discrepancy which resulted in the alleg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant paid the Service Tax within a week of being pointed out. The learned Counsel is not contesting the duty demand because he fairly concedes that even though amounts were received later they would have had to pay Service Tax in later years. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the Hon'ble High Court judgment in the case of Master Kleen (supra), I find that no case for imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
