TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd was not sustainable for the extended period, penalty u/s 78 was also not imposable. Such penalty was set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Service Tax Cross No.52208/2014 alongwith ST/57718/2013-ST (SM) - Final Order No.53193/2017 - Dated:- 8-5-2017 - Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep. by Shri Himansu Khemuka, Advocate for the appellant. Rep. by Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for normal period was confirmed by the impugned order along with penalty of equivalent amount under Section 78. 2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the said order on the ground that the demand for extended period should have been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 4. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that the said order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y under Section 78 was also not imposable. Such penalty was set aside. In view of the decision of the Division Bench involving the very same impugned order, I find that there is nothing in the present appeal, which can be examined for a different decision. There is no issue surviving for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. The Cross objection also stands disposed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
