2011 (11) TMI 529

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....topadhyay, Consultant Per: S K Gaule: Heard both sides. The Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.21/SLG/2010 dated 2.11.2010 whereby by the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the lower adjudicating authority's order confirming service tax of Rs.37,310/- and imposing penalty under Section 76 and Section 77, however, dropped the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Bri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower adjudicating authority's order, however, he dropped the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the same, Revenue is in Appeal here. 3. The contention of the Revenue is that the service tax of Rs.7,38,392/- is liable to be confirmed and the ld. A.R. for the Department submitted that the penalt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llenged the lower adjudicating authority's order, in this regard. Therefore, they are now precluded to rake up the issue at this stage. 6. In so far as imposition of penalty under Section 78 is concerned, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has found that the ingredients of Section 78, viz. suppression of facts, willful mis-statement or violation of provisions of law with intent to evade ....