9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent. Anil Choudhary :- Heard the parties. The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant has been rightly imposed penalty under Section 78 and secondly whether the appellant is entitled to redemption of 3% in the rate of interest, under Section 75 of the Finance Act. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is providing Business Auxiliary Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013 and demanded the same vide show cause notice dated 12 August 2014. The said show cause notice was adjudicated ex-parte in absence of any reply and the proposed demand was confirmed with equal amount of penalty under Section 78 and also interest. During the pendency of the adjudication, the appellant had deposited Rs. 3,58,864/-. 3. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iso. The next ground is whether penalty under Section 78 is rightly imposed. From the facts, I find that the appellant is a lady and not much conversant with the service tax laws. However, she has maintained proper records of the receipt of sales commission by cheque, duly disclosed in the Income Tax record. Thus, there is no case of deliberate defiance of law or contumacious conduct as mis-statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
