2009 (9) TMI 607

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S. Gautam, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of  Rs. 2,20,072/- upheld under impugned order-in-appeal No. 07/CE/LDH/09 dated 19-1-09 passed by Commissioner(Appeals) Chandigarh. The Appellant provided the service of Maintenance & Repairs, Cleaning services, Man Power supply. One of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osed under Section 78 and besides this, penalty was imposed under Section 76 & 77. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order-in-appeal reduced the Service tax demand to Rs. 2,20,072/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) also set aside the penalty under Section 76 but the penalty under Section 78 was upheld. The Department filed an appeal No. ST/298/09 against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s order setting aside the penalty under Section 76 has been heard by the Division Bench and the stay application has not been accepted. He, therefore, pleaded that in view of these circumstances, pre-deposit of penalty may be waived for hearing of this appeal. 2.2 Shri S. Gautam, Ld. DR pleaded that this is a case of deliberate evasion of tax; that the appellant had not taken even registr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....est prior to the issue of SCN, in terms of the Hon'ble High Court's judgment in the case of K.P. Pouches v. CCE reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 31, they should have been given an option by the Asstt. Commissioner to pay penalty equal to 25% of the duty demand confirmed during the period of 30 days and since this option had not been given, they would be entitled for reduced penalty under Section 78. ....