TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned order for seeking certain relief on merits as per the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed declaration under VCES Scheme 2013 wherein declared service tax payable amounting to Rs. 1,43,685/-. Initially the said declaration was accepted. Later on, it was found that the appellant has not correctly declared under VCES Scheme 2013, therefore, the show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (2) for non registration has already been imposed, therefore, no penalty under Section 70 of the Act is imposable for late fees. 3. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 4. After hearing both sides, I find that the appellant has sought three reliefs against the impugned order:- (A) The demand for the period beyond the five years is not sustainable. I find that in this case, the sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, therefore, penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is reduced:- (c) I find that in the impugned order, the penalty under Section 77 (2) of the Act has been imposed for non-registration and further penalty under Section 70 has been imposed for less payment of service tax. Admittedly when the appellant was not registered with the service tax department, the penalty has been imposed if....