2008 (8) TMI 200

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad Biddappa and Girish Raman for the Appellant. Ms. Joy Kumari Chander and Ms. Sudha Koka for the respondent. ORDER Dr. S. L. Peeran, Judicial Member. - The appellant is contesting the levy of penalty imposed in the Review Adjudication Order, passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore. The Assistant Commissioner in the Order-in-original dated 20-5-2006 did not confirm the penalt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....view Adjudication Order. 3. On a Careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the order-in-original has given a detailed finding for not imposing the penalty in the matter as the appellant had paid the service tax before the issue of show-cause notice and hence dropped the proceedings. The Commissioner in the Review Order has imposed penalty of Rs.4,50,000 under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed penalty of Rs.58,841 under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, apart from penalty of Rs.100 per day for which the failure to pay the service tax under section 76 of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalty imposed under section 78 of the Act but confirmed the penalty under section 76 of the Act. In this case also, the learned Chartered Accountant relies on the judgment rendered....