TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant is not covered under “Business Auxiliary Service”, penalty could not be imposed on the appellant, and therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner revising the amount of penalty must be set aside - ST/361/2006 - ST/62/2008-(PB), - Dated:- 31-3-2008 - Justice S. N. Jha, President and M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) Mr. V. Vasudevan, Advocate, for the Applicant. Shri A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt at Rs.2,64,415/- determined the service tax liability at Rs.21,153/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs.5000/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act and further penalty of Rs.500 under Section 77 of the said Act. The appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the first part of the order in terms of which the appellant had been held liable to pay service tax of Rs.21,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21,153/- under the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant raised a short point. He submitted that the orders of the Assistant Commissioner/ Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the appellant is liable to pay service tax having been set aside by the Tribunal holding that the service provided by the appellant is not covered under "Business Auxiliary Service", penalty could not be i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
