9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J) Shri A.K. Batra, C.A., for the Appellant. Shri Fateh Singh, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)].- These appeals are against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 142/CE/CHD/07 dated 4-5-2007 and the revision order of the Commissioner No. 48/CE/JC/07 dated 25-10-2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1 The appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking bank. They installed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Section 78 and upheld the other penalties. 3.3 In respect of the appeal No. 20/08, the original authority confirmed the demand of service tax relating to 1-1-2002 to 9-9-2004, interest and imposed penalties of Rs. 500/- each under Section 76 and 77. The Commissioner vide his order in revision dated 25-10-07 revised the order of the original authority and enhanced the penalty under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat as a public sector undertaking they had no intention whatsoever in evading service tax and immediately after clarification received from the Board they promptly paid the service tax. As the Commissioner (Appeals) has already waived penalty under Section 78, on the very same ground the penalties under Sections 75A, 77 and 76 should also be waived. We find the submission of the learned C.A. has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
