TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner (AR), For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the penalties imposed on the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Rubber Products and also doing job work of mixing of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om 2009-10 to 2012-13 and the same was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. 03/2015 ST dated 19.01.2015. Since the appellant has been continuing the non-payment on similar service rendered by them during the period 2013-14, a periodical show-cause notice No.31/2015/ST dated 16.04.2015 has been issued to them. The original adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of Rs. 38,212/- (Rupees Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 77(1) (a) and Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalties imposed on the appellant against which the present appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iod and therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the penalties under Section 76 imposed by the original authority. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I find that as far as penalty under Section 77 is concerned, since the Tribunal in the appellant's own case has already dropped the penalty under Section 77 by giving the benefit under Section 80 of the Finance Act, by ....