2014 (2) TMI 484

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant along with interest under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 77 and penalty of Rs.5,43,501/- under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were imposed. An amount of Rs.4,17,123/- paid by the appellant was appropriated against the demand. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 28.9.2012 set aside demand for the period 16.6.2005 to 30.4.2006 for the reason that the appellant was only an individual and during the said period service provided by a 'commercial concern' only was taxable. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand from 1.5.2006 to 31.3.2009. Interest under section 75 was confirmed and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of appeal. Further he submitted that the fact that the appellant is not contesting the tax demand may be recorded. 5. The order was pronounced in the Court that the appeal is dismissed as infructuous since the appellant wanted to seek remedy against the de-novo order involving the same matter. 6. While dictating the order in the chamber it was noticed that the adjudicating authority, in the de-novo order, did not agree with the relief given by the Commissioner (Appeal), but has re-confirmed the original amount. The reason as explained in the de-novo order is clear from paras 28, 29 and 30 of the order which are reproduced below:-          28. The Commissioner (Appeals), Madurai, in his Orde....