2010 (2) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Judicial) Appearance: Shri D.R. Gadekar, Consultant, for Appellants Shri N. A. Sayyad, JDR Authorized Representative CORAM: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) ORDER NO. Per: Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appeal is against the revisional order confirming the penalties on the appellant under Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of the case ar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d paid the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- also. The assessment was completed but the Commissioner under the powers under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 revised the assessment and hold that the appellant has willfully suppressed the fact from the department regarding the activities of business auxiliary service with intent to evade service tax due thereon and confirmed the various penalties under Sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as been accepted by the department. The same is brought in the knowledge of the adjudicating authority while considering the penalty aspect but the revisional authority instead of considering the same held that the appellant has intently evaded the payment of service tax. 4. On the other hand, the Learned DR submitted that the order of levy of service tax has become final and same has not been ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication order and it is a case of levy of penalty. While confirming the penalty, the adjudicating authority has to go into the merits to establish suppression of the material facts with an intention to evade the payment of service tax. In this case, the appellant has not asking for any consequential relief in pursuing to the adjudication order but wants to consider the merits for levy of penalties....