2010 (3) TMI 590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ngalore under which the original authority had confirmed the Service Tax amounting to Rs. 3,91,978 along with interest of Rs. 55,131 and appropriated service tax amount of Rs. 3,91,978 and interest amount of Rs. 55,131 paid by the appellant and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 along with mandatory penalty of Rs. 3,91,978 under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 respectively on the ground that the appellants have discharged the taxes only after the Anti-Evasion booked the case. The appellant filed an appeal against such order. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) after hearing the assessee rejected the appeal and upheld the order-in-original.   Aggrieved by such an order, appellant has preferred this appeal.   3. Learned Cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....payment of service tax. It is her submission that provisions of section 73(3) will not be applicable as provisions of section 73(4) will be applicable in this case as there is suppression.   5. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. Appellant is not disputing the service tax liability and interest thereof, which has been discharged by them before the issuance of show-cause notice. However, the appellant is only disputing the penalties imposed under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.   6. It is seen from the records that the appellants were registered with the authorities in the month of January 2006. The services which are rendered by the appellant would fall under the categor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessee pays the service tax liability immediately after it is pointed out. These situations had been examined by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Majestic Mobikes (P.) Ltd. [Final Order Nos. 652 to 672/2008, dated 30-5-2008] [2008 (11) S.T.R. 609 (Tribunal)] and the Tribunal had given a finding that where the original authority exercised his powers under section 80 of the Finance Act, after recording proper reasons, it cannot be reopened to enhance the penalty by the Commissioner in the Order-in-Revision. The present situation in the appeal is clearly covered by the aforesaid decision. In view of this, we are of the view that the impugned Order-in-Revision has no merit. We set aside the same and restore the order of the Original Autho....