2014 (1) TMI 408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sides. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereby Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the present respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case are respondent are held to be liable to pay service tax amount of Rs.10,17,034/- with interest as provider of outdoor catering service. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty equa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation subsequent to the filing of the appeal whereby the contention is that respondent is liable for penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act. 6. The contention of the respondents is that the service tax in respect of outdoor catering service was introduced w.e.f. 10.9.2004 and the period in dispute is starting from September 2004 to March 2007. The contention of respondents is that the club i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....door catering service comes under the purview of service tax w.e.f. 10.9.2004 and the period of present demand is initial period. 8. We find that Section 80 of the Finance Act provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 76 Section 77 [or 78], no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if the assessee proves t....