2015 (2) TMI 800

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i B. B. Sharma, DR ORDER Per: R K Singh: The appellant is a company-owned company-operated (coco) IOC outlet operator to manage the outlet for which he received commission. His responsibilities included sales promotion, and storage, protection, delivery of the IOC's products. Thus their services fell under Business Auxiliary Service and they were liable to pay service tax of Rs. 2,61,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd did not provide service in the brand name of IOC. He also stated that simultaneous penalties under Section 76 and 78 should not have been imposed in view of several judgments of Punjab & Haryana High Court under jurisdiction of which the appellant is situated. The appellant also stated that in the adjudication order or in the Order-in-Appeal the option to pay 25% of the mandatory equal penalty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Cooltech Corporation  and also in case of CCE, Vs, Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhiana -  There is also force in the appellants contention that neither in the Order-in-Original nor in the Order-in-Appeal option had been given to them to pay 25% of the mandatory equal penalty if the adjudicated liability of service tax and interest along with 25% of the mandatory equal penalty are deposit wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of 30 days is being considered, if in case option is not given earlier, from the date of availing such option - since no option was given, the Tribunal can award such an option to the assessee" 4. In the light of the foregoing, we waive the pre-deposit, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the original adjudication authority for de-novo adjudication after allowing them the benefi....