2018 (11) TMI 919

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ORDER The instant Appeal has been filed from the impugned order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Appeals-I, Mumbai. I have heard ld. Counsel for the Appellant and ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue. 2. The ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the contention of the Appellant on this point is accepted. So far as the contention of the Appellant regarding cum-tax benefit is concerned, in view of the settled legal position the Appellant is not entitle for the same. The contention of the ld. Counsel that there was no suppression of the fact by the appellants as alleged by the Revenue, in my view is not tenable because the facts are undispute....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant by holding the appellant liable to pay service tax amount for the period from October, 2006 to March 2011 alongwith interest for the period from April, 2005 to April, 2009 and modified penalty to the tune of Rs. 8,11,748/- u/s. 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period 2006-2010 with option to the appellant to pay reduced penalty i.e. 25% thereof, if ....