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

..... 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. The facts are in much in dispute. The appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso 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 Finance Act, 1994. The appellant is aggrieved by su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 representative on the other hand would submit that provi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 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 been discharged by him.   9. I find that the activity re....