9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .K. Sikdar, A.R. For approval and signature ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra These appeals are filed against respective impugned orders. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellant had rendered the services under the taxable category of 'Architecture Services' and 'Interior Decorator Service' during the period August 2003 to March 2008, but had short paid the Service Tax to the tu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2010. 3. Commissioner of Central Excise, after review of the order of the Adjudicating Authority, issued a Show Cause Notice, dt.16.06.2010 for enhancement of penalty from Rs. 4,77,700/- to Rs. 11,16,373/- under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 and also for imposition of penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994. On adjudication, the Commissioner imposed penalty under Section 76 as well as Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative for the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. He has submitted that the Appellants were maintaining two separate accounts and the total receipts in rendering the Architecture service had not been disclosed to the Department during the relevant period. This fact has been admitted by Shri Bhaskar Omprakash Narulla in his statement dt.15.04.2008, that even though they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted during the relevant period. Therefore, the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 equal to the Service Tax evaded i.e. Rs. 11,16,373/- has been rightly been confirmed by the learned Commissioner in the adjudicating order. However, the Appellants are eligible to discharge 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 on fulfillment of the conditions laid down ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
