TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and that they have not declared the fact of providing of 'Rent-a-Cab' service and have wrongly availed benefit of Notification No.40/97-ST dated 22.8.1997. The appellants were issued a show-cause seeking demand of service tax of Rs. 2,39,542/- along with interest while seeking to impose penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No.38/(D-II)/2006-07 dated 6.2.2007 confirmed the duty demanded and interest of Rs. 2,02,976/- and a penalty of Rs. 1000 under Section 77. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore reviewed the order under the provisions Section 84 of the Act and issued a show-cause notice seeking to impose penalty under Section 76 and 78 and the same was confirmed vide Order No.9/2009 date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h interest before issuance of show-cause notice. The original adjudicating authority has gone into the facts of the case and in exercise of his discretion imposed penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and refrained from imposing penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. We find that Tribunal in the cases cited by the appellant has taken a view that when duty and interest have been paid before the issuance of show-cause notice, penalty need not be imposed. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Remac Marketing (P) Ltd. (supra) relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. held that : "4.2 After hearing the matter for some time, we considered proper to dispense pre-deposit and dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a particular rate, certainly it cannot be found fault with. The revisional authority in his revisional jurisdiction cannot enhance the penalty. It is settled law that if two views are possible, merely because the appellate authority or the revisional authority's view is not consistent with view taken by the original authority, that would not be a ground to interfere with an order passed by the lower authority. When the lower authority imposes a penalty, which is more than the minimum, the revisional authority has no jurisdiction in exercise of power under Section 84 to interfere with such power and enhance the penalty. Of course, when the penalty is more than minimum the aggrieved person would certainly challenge the order on the ground th....