2007 (6) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4. The respondents have also filed a cross objection against the very same order-in-appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are provider of services as "Stock Broker". The respondents got registered and were paying Service Tax on the stock broking activities till June 96. However, suddenly they stopped paying Service Tax on the brokerage activities during the period July 9....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....terest. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), after hearing the respondent upheld the order to the extend of confirmation of demand, interest, and penalties under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 but set aside the penalties imposed under Section 78. The revenue is in appeal against such setting a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e respondent submits that the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as setting aside the penalty under Section 78 is correct as he has invoked the provisions of Section 80, having been shown the reasonable cause of non payment of Service Tax. He further submits that in cross objection they have challenged the confirmation of the demand on the ground that show cause notice dated 21-3-20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....seen from the records that the respondents were issued different show cause notices from 20-12-96 to 30-12-98 for non-submission of quarterly ST-3 return to the authorities. It is also on record that the respondent had collected the amount of Service Tax charged by them from their customers but not deposited with the authorities. Be that as it may be, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not clearly....