9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent : Shri Amresh Jain, DR ORDER Per: R K Singh: 1. Stay Application along with Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No.31(ST/RPR-I/2013, dated 06.03.2013, which upheld the service tax demand of Rs. 19,576/- confirmed by the original adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) while setting aside the mandatory penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, in paras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for imposition of penalty. 8. Under the facts and circumstances as stated above, I consider that this is a fit case of waiver of penalties imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. In the result appeal is partially allowed by setting aside penalties imposed upon the Appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Held Accordingly." 2. In this regard it is to be noted that the condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eyond normal period of one year (except for a period of mere three months i.e. October, 2006 to December, 2006 and that too only if the Show Cause Notice dated 23.02.2008 was actually received by the appellants on or before 25.02.2008) and therefore is hit by time bar in view of the analysis above. When the entire demand covering the period October, 2002 to December, 2006 is a meagre Rs. 19,576/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
