9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey (Supdt.), for Appellant Absent, for Respondent Per: Ashok Jindal The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order, wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was engaged in providing 'Commercial Training and Coaching' to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) who gave the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, to the respondent and dropped the penalties. Against the said order, the Revenue is before us on the ground that the respondent has failed to give reasonable cause for giving benefit of Section 80 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order are dropping the penalties to be set aside. 3. Heard the parties. On perusal of record, we find that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions 77 and 78 of the Act by giving the benefit under Section 80 of the Act. The Revenue has not come up with the concrete evidence before us that the respondent did not pay service tax with mala fide intentions. In that circumstances, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned order, the same is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Cross Objections is also disposed of in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
