2015 (5) TMI 806

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Amresh Jain, DR ORDER Per: R K Singh: 1. Stay Application along with Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No.31(ST/RPR-I/2013, dated 06.03.2013, which upheld the service tax demand of Rs. 19,576/- confirmed by the original adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) while setting aside the mandatory penalty under Sect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of interpretation, there is no justification for imposition of penalty. 8. Under the facts and circumstances as stated above, I consider that this is a fit case of waiver of penalties imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. In the result appeal is partially allowed by setting aside penalties imposed upon the Appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Held Accordingly." 2. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... It is thus obvious that the entire demand is beyond normal period of one year (except for a period of mere three months i.e. October, 2006 to December, 2006 and that too only if the Show Cause Notice dated 23.02.2008 was actually received by the appellants on or before 25.02.2008) and therefore is hit by time bar in view of the analysis above. When the entire demand covering the period October, 2....