TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue. CORAM: MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa: Vide their impugned order, the lower authority has confirmed demand of service tax amounting to Rs.72,258/-. In addition, penalty @ Rs.100/- per day under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of equal to the duty amount under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994, have been imposed. 2. As per facts on record, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advocate has drawn my attention to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Malabar Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST Chennai as reported in 2007(10)LCX0197 as also in the case of S. Jayashree Vs. CCE Mangalore as reported in 2006(12)LCX0247, wherein it was held that staff salary and infrastructure expenses are required to be abated. However, the learned advocate fairly submits that they have no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, he submits that imposition of penalty upon them is not justified. 6. Countering the arguments, the learned SDR submits that initially they disclosed the service value as around Rs.58,000 in their ST-3 returns, it was subsequently enhanced to Rs.62,000 approximately. This fact itself shows that the appellant is not disclosing correct value of the service. 7. After appreciating the submissions ....