2012 (7) TMI 78

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m these companies, investigation was taken up. As soon as the investigation was taken up and appellant was informed of the liability, the appellant paid the service tax and the interest on 27.02.06 and 03.03.06. Thereafter proceedings were initiated by issue of show cause notice which resulted in confirmation of the demand of service tax and appropriation of the amount paid by the appellant and also in imposition of penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Appellants paid 25% of the service tax towards penalty and thereby paid of all the dues resulting from the adjudication order passed by the Additional Commissioner. However, the Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 84 of Finance Act, 1994, proposed a revision of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....94. Further, the appellant also contended that this is a case where even penalty under Section 78 was not payable. Even then the appellant paid 25% of service tax towards penalty so that unnecessary litigation is avoided and dispute does not arise. It was submitted that there was a confusion in the minds of the operators of service stations up to 31.10.04 as to whether service tax was payable on this service or not since appellants had felt that they were commission agents. After the amendment of the law on 10.09.04, the service tax was being paid regularly by the appellant and the very fact that the dispute relates to the period from 01.07.03 to 31.10.04 itself would show that the appellants were paying tax regularly. It is also noticed in....