TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. ST/60/11 & ST/CO/100/12 - - - Dated:- 29-5-2015 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) For the Petitoner : Shri A.B. Kulgod, AC (AR) ORDER Per: Shri Anil Choudhary The Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. PI/RKS/212/2010 dated 1.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-I by which the order of the adjudicating authority was upheld to the extent of confirmation of demand of Service Tax amounting to ₹ 25,00,640/- with interest of ₹ 2,81,592/-. However, penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77 and 78 were set aside under the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Being aggrieved with the deletion of penalty, the Revenue is in appeal. 2. The brief facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es provided by them fall under Architect Services and therefore, they did not register under the Interior Decorator services. It was further stated that Service Tax was not pain on the assumption that Landscape Consultancy is not covered under the Service Tax provisions. It was further stated that on being so pointed out by the Revenue that the Landscape design is taxable under the Head Interior Decorators, they have paid the Service Tax as applicable amounting to ₹ 28,42,386/- along with interest of ₹ 3,08,346/-. 2.3 The show-cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 15.6.2010 adjudicating the proposed demand and also appropriated the amount already paid. Further, the penalties were imposed under Sections 76, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was the plea of the department that the Service Tax amount was not paid at time. However, the same was paid along with interest subsequently and in any case before the issue of show-cause notice. Relying the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Siger Spintech Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vs. CCE 2006 (3) STR 236 (Tri-Chennai), the learned Commissioner (Appeals) found the ratio applicable to the facts of the present case and held that penalty imposed on all the Sections 76, 77 and 78 is not sustainable and therefore, set aside the same. 3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal on the ground that some part of the tax was paid after issue of show-cause notice. In support, the Revenue have produced a report dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
