2006 (2) TMI 628

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e For the Respondent : Shri S.N. Prasad, SDR ORDER M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) 1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 3-8-2005 wherein the appellate authority has upheld the Order-in-Original imposing penalty on the appellants. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are providing services of transportation and loading of coal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on them under different sections of the Finance Act, 1994. On adjudication the adjudicating authority imposed penalty on the appellants under Sections 75A, 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On an appeal preferred by the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) concurred the view of the adjudicating authority and upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned Advocate appearin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bmits that the whole initiation of writing letter started only when the audit department of the Central Excise queried from the appellants about the amount of service tax paid. On such query the appellants sought clarification from the department. Hence, penalty imposed on the appellants is correct and there is no reason for showing any leniency to the appellants. 5. Considered the submissions ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as the case may be, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) in respect of service tax so paid :" ... From the above it is very clear that there need not be any show cause notice issued to the appellants even when the service tax has escaped assessment, and if the same has ....