TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 337
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.CS/43/DMN/ VAPI-I/2011-12, dt.24.08.2011. 2. Aggrieved by Order-in-Original No.Vapi-I/DC/ST(DEMAND)/21/ 2009-2010, dt.29.01.2010, the appellants preferred an appeal before first appellate authority. The first appellate authority upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. Hence, this appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel would submit that the appellant herein had already dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Service Tax liability as has been confirmed by lower authorities along with interest before issuance of show cause notice and is not contesting the issue before the Tribunal. Hence, to that extent, the orders of both the lower authorities are upheld. 6. As regards penalty imposed, I find that during the relevant period, there was confusion as to whether the appellant herein, who is a direct selli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of Service Tax. Further, in terms of provisions of Section 73 also, once Service Tax and interest are paid, the matter has to be treated as concluded and no show cause notice need to be issued. In view of Boards circular as well as the provisions of Section 73 of the Act, this was a case where no action was warranted. I find that the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Modern Machinery ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....76, 77 & 78 of the Act are not imposable, the question of considering whether penalty was imposable under Section 76 and 78 of the Act, does not arise. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected and cross objection filed by the respondents treating the same as appeal, is allowed by setting aside the penalties imposed under Section 77 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 7.....