2009 (12) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant. I. Baig for the Respondent. ORDER 1. Ld. Counsel Shri Harvinder Singh submits that as against Adjudication raising Service Tax demand of Rs. 2,38,739 and penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Appellant was before ld. Commissioner (Appeals). That Appellate Authority by an order dated 16-1-2009 held that the appellant shall not be liable to Service Tax under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The penalty imposed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of his order in para 11 was on the ground that the appellant was not a defaulter and not also had wilfully evaded revenue. But because the appellant had provided Repair and Maintenance Service to National Fertilizer Ltd., its liability could be determined by Revenue while conducting Audit of that concern. But the appellant having come to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peals) who invoked section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 for consideration of penalty issue. The mere allegation being suppression and that stands proved as noticed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 11 of the order, the manner of proof of suppression has not been brought to record. Instead appellant's attitude to comply to law surfaces. Penalty proceedings is a quasi-criminal proceeding and the ....