2015 (11) TMI 1044

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Act, 1994 was not upheld in view of the fact that penalty under Section 78 ibid had been imposed. Revenue is also in appeal against the said order-in-appeal on the ground that during the relevant period, penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were not mutually exclusive and therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the penalty under Section 76 is not legal and proper and sought restoration of penalty under Section 76. 2. The appellants-assessee is providing Mandap Keeper service during which they also provided food/beverages. As the appellant-assessee was not able to provide evidence with regard to the value of the goods sold, the service tax demand was confirmed by giving 40% abatement. It is also seen that the appellant-asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n. A marriage function is also a social function. Thus we are in no doubt that the said explanation added on 1.6.2007 was merely in the nature of ex abundante cautela and therefore has retrospective applicability. 4. As regards the contention of the appellant-assessee that benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST should have been extended to them, we would like to reproduce the said provision hereunder : "In exercise of the power conferred by Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 to 1994), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts so much of the value of all the taxable services, as is equal to the value of goods and materials sold by the service provider to the recipient....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o period covered by the first show cause notice dated 2.3.2007 and therefore in the given circumstances in the light of the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. CCE - 2006 (74) RLT 564 (SC), the allegation of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of assessee in respect of the two Show Cause Notices dated 18.10.2007 and 15.9.2008 cannot be sustained and consequently penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 in respect of the said two Show Cause Notices cannot be sustained. As the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the penalty under Section 76 on the ground that the penalty under Section 78 has been imposed, the impugned order will therefore be required to be modified to the extent that the p....