2010 (8) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....   G.M. Badkar for the Appellant. R.K. Mahajan for the Respondent. ORDER P.G. Chacko, Judicial Member - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the ld. Commissioner has confirmed demand of service tax of over Rs. 2.1 crores against the appellant for the period from December, 2006 to August, 2007 and has also imposed on them equal amount of penalty under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....chequer. The show-cause notice which was issued in October, 2007 demanded the above service tax from the appellant and also proposed penalties on them. These proposals were contested. It was in adjudication of this dispute that the Commissioner passed the impugned order. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the entire amount of service tax was paid with interest before adjudication of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sides have referred to the provisions of section 73 of the Finance Act. 3. After considering the submissions, we have not found prima facie case for the appellant insofar as the tax liability fixed on them by the Commissioner is concerned. It is apparent from the records that the appellant voluntarily got themselves registered with the department as 'programme producer' as early as February, 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r cent of the minimum penalty under section 78 at the time of filing of the appeal. In a case where the service tax to be paid is determined under section 73 in adjudication of a demand notice, it is open to the assessee to pay up the tax amount with interest as also to pay 25 per cent of the penalty determined. Having regard to the spirit of these provisions, we are of the view that, in the facts....