TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 as Shri Sanjay B Patil filed appeal before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. P-II/MMD/308-309....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 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 option but to allow the issue regarding setting aside of pen....