2019 (11) TMI 836

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vocate for the appellant Shri K Poddar, Authorized Representative for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: 1. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order where they are contesting imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and late fees imposed under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was providing various t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , 2012 the appellant was not liable to pay service tax, therefore, the demand from the period prior to July, 2012 was dropped and the remaining demand proposed in the Show Cause Notice was confirmed along with interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Act was imposed. Further a fine of Rs. 1,40,000/- also imposed on the appellant under Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The said order was chal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ebruary, 2014. Therefore, penalty and fine are required to be dropped. 4. On the other hand learned AR supported the impugned order. 5. Heard both the sides and considered the submissions. 6. On perusal of the records place before me I find that it is a fact on record that appellant availed service tax Registration on 08.10.2013, whereas investigation was started on February, 2014, as appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X