9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue for imposing penalty under Section 76 along with 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant has Authorized Service Station and during the course of audit it was found that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the appellant and confirmed the penalty under Section 76 of the Act. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant has challenged the impugned order, therefore, they have challenged for confirmation the demand of service tax on handling charges by the adjudicating authority, therefore, the appeal is to be heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A), therefore, the adjudication order qua demanding service tax is final and attained finality. 5. The ld. Counsel further submits that as the appellant has not challenged the confirmation of demand of service tax before the ld. Commissioner (A) but on merits they are not required to pay service tax on handling charges, therefore, penalty on the appellant is not sustainable. 6. On the oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Bajaj Travel Ltd. (Supra). In that circumstances, the penalty was imposable if demand of service tax is to be confirmed against the assessee. 10. Admittedly, on merits, the demand against the appellant cannot be confirmed in the light of the decision of this Tribunal Seva Automotive Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2016 (46) STR 428 (Tri. Mumbai) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
