2017 (11) TMI 293

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cts of the present case are that the appellant is a company providing services of marketing of tickets, by entering into agreements with various event organisers for promoting marketing of tickets by undertaking ticketing services by charging services charges.  They are also engaged in providing collection of payments, bar coding of tickets, delivery of tickets, managing box office operation etc. on behalf of the various clients and are also providing sponsorship services.  On gathering intelligence regarding evasion of service tax by the appellant, DGCEI, Bangalore conducted investigations, during which, it came to light that, the assessee was charging delivery fee for every ticket delivered upon the ticket buyer request ticket s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rds the service tax and Rs. 58,642/- towards interest liability but did not impose penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 by extending the benefit under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and holding that the service tax along with interest was paid before the issue of show-cause notice.  Thereafter the Commissioner, while exercising the power of revisionary authority, issued a show-cause notice and after following due process, imposed the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act.  Hence the present appeal. 3.   Heard both the parties and perused records. 4.   Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating th....