TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Roadlines], Hubli against Order-in-Original No. 5/2006, dated 25-9-2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum. 2. Appellants were rendering service under the category "Courier Agency". Appellants had paid Service tax only in case of consignments collected by the appellants from the consignor's place and delivered at the consignee's place i.e. "door-to-door" service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n proceedings under similar facts and circumstances, Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had dropped the penalties imposed. As per the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 6687 of 2005 [2006 (4) S.T.R. J115 (S.C.)], the appellant accepted the Service tax liability on express cargo other than door-to-door and paid the Service tax along with interest and therefore th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and therefore the adjudicating authority is wrong in imposing penalty. Relying upon various decisions of the Tribunals, the appellants requested to set aside the impugned order. 4. Sri. K.S. Naveen Kumar L and Sri R. Dakshina Murthy, Advocates for the appellant appeared for the personal hearing. 5. I have gone through the record of this case and have carefully considered submissions of the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of duty attracting penalty under Section 76 is condonable in terms of Section 80 if the appellants have a reasonable cause for not making the payment. They were of the view that part of services rendered by them was not liable to tax. The decision of Apex Court dated 21-11-2005 finalising the dispute having a bearing on liability between April, 2004 and April, 2005 cannot be a basis for employin....