TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty of 25% is not entitled - ST/163/2007-SM(BR) - 1582/2007-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 24-10-2007 - [Order per] - The Revenue has challenged the order dated 25-1-2007 made by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) to the extent that it modifies the order-in-original by setting aside the penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. The fact that Service tax of Rs. 1,93, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant was not entitled to the benefit of the lesser penalty of 25% of the Service tax determined as contemplated by the first proviso to Section 78 of the said Act. 3. The decision of the Larger Bench in CCE, Delhi-III Gurgaon v. Machino Montell Ltd. (supra) was reversed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CCE v. Machino Montell Ltd., reported in 2006 (4) S.T.R. 177 (P H) = 2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to issuance of show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, will not necessarily negate the situation mentioned therein. This would mean that if the duty is deposited prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, there would not be any automatic waiver of penalty. 6. It transpires from the record that there was delay of 146 days in depositing the Service tax due for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
