TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te appearing on behalf of the appellant that the payment particulars have been incorrectly stated in Para 29 and 36.9 of the Adjudication order and entire penalty of 25% payable under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 stand paid and thus no penalty is required to be paid under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is observed from the order dated 22.4.2014 passed by the first Appellate authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 24.01.2013. 2. Shri S.J. Vyas, (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that his client was registered with the Service Tax authorities for providing services of Erection, Commissioning or Installation and Management, Maintenance or Repair Services. That a demand of ₹ 7,19,763/- for the period from 01.10.2006 to March 2011 was issued and confirmed against the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of fact, in appeal filed by the appellant to argue that no service tax or penalty was payable before October 2006. He also argued that Section 76 penalty is not imposable when Section 78 penalty paid as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. 3. Shri S.K. Shukla (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the orders passed by the lower authorities. 4. Heard both sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. For the purpose of reconciliation of the payments made vis-`-vis duty liability of the appellant, the matter is required to be remanded back to the original adjudicating authority. This case is thus remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide the quantification of duty payments made and Section 78 penalty paid by the appellant, after giving an opportunity of personal hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
