2017 (8) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant Sh. H. Singh, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: Devender Singh The brief facts are that Sh. Gursharan Singh, M/s COCO Operator, (H.P. Centre) Basant, Partap Nagar, Ludhiana was engaged in providing the services covered under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' I.e. promotion/marketing/sale of goods provided by or belonging to M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved from same, the appellant is before us. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant is not contesting on the merits of the case but is only contesting the penalty under Section 78. Ld. Advocate contends that the period involved is 2003-2007 whereas the show cause notice has been issued on 30.10.2007. He argues that there was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... record. 6. In this case, the appellant have only pleaded for setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994. We find that the appellant was providing business auxiliary service. However they did not take service tax registration as was required under the law and they did not pay the service tax. We find that the business auxiliary service was brought within purview ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hable on facts. In that case the Asstt. Commissioner had imposed penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 76 and Section 78 of the Act, exercising discretion made Section 80 of Finance Act 1994, which was enhanced to Rs. 31,652/- by the Commissioner in revision proceedings. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that as the order-in-original did not record any finding of fraud, misstatement etc. envisag....