9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh: The appellant is a company-owned company-operated (coco) IOC outlet operator to manage the outlet for which he received commission. His responsibilities included sales promotion, and storage, protection, delivery of the IOC's products. Thus their services fell under Business Auxiliary Service and they were liable to pay service tax of Rs. 2,61,211 /- for the period 2005-2006 to 30.09. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of IOC. He also stated that simultaneous penalties under Section 76 and 78 should not have been imposed in view of several judgments of Punjab & Haryana High Court under jurisdiction of which the appellant is situated. The appellant also stated that in the adjudication order or in the Order-in-Appeal the option to pay 25% of the mandatory equal penalty should have been given and as the same has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f CCE, Vs, Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhiana - There is also force in the appellants contention that neither in the Order-in-Original nor in the Order-in-Appeal option had been given to them to pay 25% of the mandatory equal penalty if the adjudicated liability of service tax and interest along with 25% of the mandatory equal penalty are deposit within 30 days and that such option should be g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is not given earlier, from the date of availing such option - since no option was given, the Tribunal can award such an option to the assessee" 4. In the light of the foregoing, we waive the pre-deposit, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the original adjudication authority for de-novo adjudication after allowing them the benefit of small scale if otherwise eligible and to con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
