2008 (9) TMI 85

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vasan, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - In the impugned order the applicant M/s. Mani Engineering Works has sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalty imposed on it under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act), by the Commissioner in an order passed in revision in terms of Section 84 of the Act. After hearing bo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellants did not constitute service of 'site preparation and clearance'. The appellants had only rented out cranes for use by L & T on hire basis. This was not a taxable activity. They had challenged the tax demanded and the penalty imposed by the original authority before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was pending. It is submitted that once a penalty was imposed under Section 78 and im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... It is found from the appeal filed by M/s. Mani Engineerings Works, that they have challenged the service tax demanded, consequent to which the impugned penal liability had been fastened on them. Tax liability on the activity undertaken by the appellants being under challenge before the Commissioner (A), penalty under Section 76 of the Act could not have been validly imposed on the appellants in....