9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se (Appeals), Coimbatore wherein following the decision of this Tribunal and the judgment of the Apex Court he had vacated the penalty imposed on the respondents by the original authority. The respondents had availed Goods Transport Operator (GTO) service during the period 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998. They had not followed the legal formalities such as registration with the department, filing of return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1994 for their failure to file the service tax returns in time. 2. The respondents challenged the penalty of Rs. 9,417 imposed on them on the ground that they had already paid the service tax amount along with interest as well as penalty imposed under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the relief prayed for by the respondents. His finding is as follows:— "In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not sustainable both under the provisions of section 73 as it stood on the date of issue of show-cause notice and also under the provisions as amended by Finance Act, 2003. In the result, we set aside the order impugned and allow the appeals.' On civil appeal filed by the Department against the above decision of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Apex Court having entirely agreed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayer in the appeal is to restore the order-in-original. The representative of the respondents submits that liabilities as per the order-in-original had already been discharged and the penalty of Rs. 9,417 was vacated vide the impugned order. He prayed that the impugned order may be sustained. 4. After considering the submissions made by both sides, I find that the Commissioner has vacated the pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
