2015 (12) TMI 330

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. PIII/RS/187/2012 dtd. 30/5/2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-III), Central Excise, Pune, wherein the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the demand of service tax and interest confirmed but set aside the penalty imposed under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 of the Original order. The fact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....herefore Revenue is before me. 2. Shri. A.B. Kulgod, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing for the Revenue submits that as regard the demand of service tax there is no dispute. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order while setting aside the penalties has not given satisfactory explanation. He submits that the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) inasmuch as service tax paid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dropped the penalty under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is his submission that the service provider is a very small time labour contractor and as in his statement he admitted tax liability from the day of investigation started. The respondent even though in a very poor financial condition and also did not recover service tax amount from the service recipient paid the entire servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. 5. I find that the respondent has deposited tax liability alongwith interest admittedly. The respondent is small labour contractor and he born the tax liability by himself which he has not recovered from the service recipients. These are the sufficient cause to invoke Section 80 for waiver of penalty imposed under Section 77 and 7....