2017 (7) TMI 169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....V.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent ORDER Per Raju 1. Vide Order-in-Original dated 15.6.2012, the Additional Commissioner of Service Tax had confirmed the demand of duty and interest. He had imposed penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, he extended benefit of Section 80 in respect of penalty imposed under Sections 76 and 78. Against this order, both Revenue as well....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Appeals) in para 14 of his order has observed as follows: - "14. Coming to the issue of not granting waiver from the liability of penalty of Rs. 12,000/- imposed under Section 77 of the Act, I find that the respondent had already extended the benefit of Section 80 of the Act. The appeal filed by the Department against the said portion of the Order-in-Original was dismissed by the Commissioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s essentially challenging the invocation of Section 80 by Commissioner (Appeals) for setting aside penalties. In these circumstances, we find that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27.12.2012 has already been set aside by the Tribunal on the issue of confirmation of demand of Service Tax and interest and imposition of penalty under Section 77. 3. In these circumstances, we have no optio....