2016 (5) TMI 899

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ushik, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) ORDER The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AV(66)05/2014 dated 15.4.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad wherein the Ld. Commissioner, maintaining the order of the original adjudicating authority except late fee which was kept in abeyance. In the present appeal, the appellant has contested imposition of pen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fee under Section 70 was confirmed. Challenging the said adjudication order the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the demand of service tax, penalty under Section 78 of the Act. However, as regard late fee he held that this matter may be kept in abeyance until the returns are filed. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Asho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....no penalty should have been imposed. 4. On the other hand, Shri V. Kaushik, Learned Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that the appellant is not a regular defaulter on payment of service tax. The liability arose only due to crossing the exempti....