2014 (1) TMI 1761

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... N. Jagdish, Superintendent (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Justice G. Raghuram, President]. - Service tax demand of Rs. 63,47,047/- plus interest thereon under Section 75; besides penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act (Act) were confirmed by the adjudication order dated 17-2-2012, passed by the C.C.E.&S.T., Hyderabad-II Commissionerate. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ubstantive proceedings and culminated in the impugned order. 3. On the aforesaid factual matrix, it is prima facie clear that there is no substantial error in the impugned adjudication order. Even after the adjudication order was passed, the petitioner failed to remit the assessed liability of service tax plus 25%, the penalty, which would have enabled scaling down of the penalty component, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X