2010 (8) TMI 572

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ayment of tax. Appellants paid the tax due of Rs. 3,36,592/- on 14-10-2004. The original authority adjudicated the allegations against the appellants. He confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 3,36,592/- and appropriated the same vide his order dated 28-12-2006. He demanded applicable interest under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 (the Act). He refrained from imposing penalty on the appellants under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act. Vide the impugned order, passed in review proceedings initiated under Section 84 of the Act, the Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 100/- per day for the period the tax due remained unpaid, under Section 76 of the Act. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Act. 2. In the appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....art of the appellants. 3. During hearing, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order was passed after expiry of two years from the date of the order of the original authority. As per Section 84(5) of the Finance Act, 1994 no order under this section shall be passed after the expiry of two years from the date on which the order sought to be revised was passed. He submits that in the instant case, the original authority had passed the order on 14-12-2006. The impugned order was passed on 16-12-2008. Therefore, the impugned order was not passed in accordance with law and was liable to be set aside. 3.1 I have heard the learned SDR, who submits that the order of the original authority was passed and issued on 28....