https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34358 Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act required reconsideration where service tax had been paid suo motu before notice. The CESTAT noted that Section 73(3) and the Board's circular on pre-notice payment were relevant to whether penalty proceedings could be sustained, and that the circular was binding on departmental authorities even though it had not been placed before the lower authority. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision after considering the circular and giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing. en-us Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34358 Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act required reconsideration where service tax had been paid suo motu before notice. The CESTAT noted that Section 73(3) and the Board's circular on pre-notice payment were relevant to whether penalty proceedings could be sustained, and that the circular was binding on departmental authorities even though it had not been placed before the lower authority. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision after considering the circular and giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34358