TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order dated 19.9.05. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are commission agents for M/s. Indian Aluminium Ltd. and were receiving the commission for selling of the goods of Indian Aluminium. They failed to take Service Tax Registration during the period of their operation i.e. from September, 2001 to March, 2002. Subsequently, the appellants paid the Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the present appeal. 3. Considered the submissions made at length from both sides and perused the records. I find that the appeal is against imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act. That the Revisionary Order of the Commissioner directs itself to impose penalty on the ground that the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Central Excise are not applicable in the cases of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ern reported in 2005 (71) RLT 476 (CESTAT-Kol.)=[2005] 3 STJ 714 (CESTAT-Kolkata), has relied upon the decision of Top Detective Security Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and held that if the amount of service tax and interest thereon is paid before the issue of show-cause notice then no penalty is imposable on the assessee 4. Both the above said case laws squarely cover the issue in this case and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
