2017 (9) TMI 1635

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R M.V. RAVINDRAN ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 361/2011 dated 04.07.2011. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue that arises in this case is regarding penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and upheld by the First Appellate Authority. 4. It is seen from the records that on scrutiny of records of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 6. The First Appellate Authority after following due process of law, upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned Counsel after taking me through records, submitted that the taxability of the amounts received by them from their clients was in confusion as their clients received a legal opinion that service tax is not leviable on the supply of manpower by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from the Bench as to whether Appellant during the period in question raised doubts on the matter to the Service Tax department as to activity taken by them as otherwise, fairly submits that they have not referred the matter. But they were engaged in continuous correspondence with their clients and the issue was still being discussed at the higher level between Appellant and their client. 10. I fi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X