9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per R.K. Singh : This Misc. application has been filed for early hearing for disposal of the stay application. The stay application along with appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 166-ST/D-II/2013 dated 29.7.2013 which upheld the order-in-original dated 3.5.2011 in terms of which a duty demand of Rs. 20,31,636/- was confirmed along with interest and penalties of Rs. 1000/- under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal adjudicating authority or before the first appellate authority and merely asserted that the case should not be adjudicated. Even before the Tribunal they have made no pleadings on merit. The ld. Advocate during hearing only stated that penalty under Section 76 should not be imposed when penalty under Section 78 has been imposed and that they should be given option to pay reduced (25%) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or promoting sale of their goods is clearly covered under the Business Auxiliary Service and so the appellants are liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism with effect from 18.4.2006 in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. There are no pleadings to contest this aspect and therefore no further elaborate discussion on this point is required. As regards the plea that onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder-in-Original or in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee respondent has been given the benefit of payment of reduced penalty Court has followed a consistent view that the assessee is required to be given the option by the adjudicating authority where he is asked to pay a duty demand with interest and 25% of penalty within 30 days from the date of adjudication of the order and in su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
