2012 (6) TMI 554

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....V. Ravindran, Judicial Member   1. This appeal is filed against order-in-appeal No.50/2010/COMMR(A)/RAJ, dt. 19.02.10.   2. Heard both sides and perused the records.   3. The issue in this appeal is regarding the setting aside of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 imposed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority.   4. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 and also appropriated the amount paid by the appellant. Aggrieved by such an order, appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority upheld the confirmation of the demand, interest thereof and also upheld the penalty imposed under Section 78 while setting aside the penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Fina....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he service tax liability, as during the relevant period Tribunal in the following judgments has held that such an activity will not amount to rendering of services.   1. South East Corporation - 2007 (8) STR 405 (Tri. - Bang.)   2. Pink City Communications - 2008 (10) STR 575 (Tri. - Del.)   3. R Venkataramanan - 2009 (13) STR 187 (Tri. - Chennai)   Ld. departmental....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s made at length by both sides.   7. The issue involved in this case is regarding the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.   8. It is undisputed that the appellant has discharged the service tax liability on him under the category Business Auxiliary Services for the period before the issuance of show cause notice. The interest thereof has also....