TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/1487/2011-SM - Final Order No. 22025/2017 - Dated:- 8-9-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Malla Rao, Advocate - For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, Dy. Commissioner(AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S Garg The present appeal is directed against the Review Order dt. 23/12/2010 passed by the Commissioner whereby the Commissioner while exercising his revisionary power, has set aside the Order-in-Original and imposed penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.1. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a company providing services of marketing of tickets, by entering into agreements with various event organisers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax rendering themselves liable to penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. 2.2. On these allegations, a show-cause notice was issued proposing to demand the service tax and also for appropriation of the service tax and the interest paid by the appellant and also proposed the penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78. After considering the submissions of the party, the Additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dt. 02/07/2009 confirmed the demand along with interest and appropriated an amount of ₹ 11,76,366/- towards the service tax and ₹ 58,642/- towards interest liability but did not impose penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 by extending the benefit under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y power has dropped the penalty then the Commissioner in exercise of his revisionary power cannot impose the penalty under Section 78. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CST, Bangalore Vs. Motor World [2012(27) STR 225 (Kar.)]. He also relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CST Vs. Next Link Pvt. Ltd. [CEA No.119/2009; order dt. 15/09/2011] wherein it has been held that if the entire service tax with interest is paid before the issuance of show-cause notice, then the assessee is not liable to pay penalty. 5. Learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the sides and perus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
