TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1443
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wan Kumar Singh, Superintendant (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant has been charged with service tax on the ground that during the period in question they have provided 'Intellectual Property Services' to various clients without payment of Service Tax. It is seen that originally demand of Rs. 2,15,198/- was confirmed against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot be imposed simultaneously under both the Sections i.e. Section 76 & 78. 3. Accordingly, the demand was reduced to Rs. 1,53,129 along with confirmation of interest 'Penalty under Section 76 was set aside' and penalty under Section 78 was reduced to the service tax demand amount of Rs. 1,53,129/- and penalty under Section 77 was reduced to Rs. 1,000/-. 4. Learned C.A. appearing for the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant's non-cooperative behavior thus reflecting upon their mala fide and justifying imposition of penalties. 6. On going through the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals,) we find that the appellant authority has already extended the due benefit to the appellant by agreeing with the contentions raised by the appellant and has reduced the confirmed tax amount as also has set aside penalt....