2016 (3) TMI 107

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant. Shri Rajiv Ranjan, Jt. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : P.S. Pruthi, Member (T)]. - This appeal arises out of Order-in-Appeal dated 30-9-2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The appellant are a security agency and rendered security agency services, which is a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. During the period 1-4-2004 to 30....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erest and imposed penalty under Section 76 as well as equivalent penalty of Rs. 1,11,181/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the demand from Rs. 1,11,181/- to Rs. 92,497/- for the reason that rate of tax initially was 8% which later was increased to 10.2%. However, the department had considered the rate for the entire period as 10.2%. On the reduced....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d have reimbursed @ 10.2% from 10-9-2004 when the rate of duty was enhanced. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Busy Bee - (2009) 18 STT 392 (Chennai-CESTAT) = 2008 (12) S.T.R. 613 (Tribunal), which held that no penalty is imposable when the act is not deliberate. 4. ....