2016 (6) TMI 1419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R.s for the Respondent/Revenue ORDER This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.9.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Service Tax, New Delhi, upholding the service tax demand along with interest and penalty confirmed in the original order. The adjudged demand was confirmed against the appellant on the ground that it did not pay the service tax dues for the period November .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. I find that Service tax liability has not been discharged by the appellant within the stipulated time prescribed in Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Thus, interest liability is automatic and as such, confirmation of such liability by the authorities below is in conformity with the statutory provisions. However, I find that imposition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mount of penalty, which can be payable by the appellant. Therefore, the matter needs to go back to the original authority for quantification of the quantum of penalty under the un-amended provisions of Section 76 ibid. 6. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order is confirmed to the extent of demand of service tax of Rs. 1,41,653/- along with interest. For quantifying the penalty under Section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X