2007 (4) TMI 248

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ORDER 1. This appeal is filed against the order-in-appeal dated 23-12-2004, which upheld the order-in-original that imposed penalty on the appellant under sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts are undisputed inasmuch as the appellant was providing the services as an architect. The appellant had not got registered himself under the belief that he is not liable to pay ser....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e was no reasonable cause and, hence, imposed penalties on the appellant under sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. On an appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also concurred with the view of the adjudicating authority on the very same ground. Hence this appeal. 3. ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that they are not challenging the service tax liability but only....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....] 7 STT 13 (New Delhi-CESTAT), A. R. Sandeep C. Sikchi v. CCE 2006 (4) STR 587 (Tribunal) and Amit Kumar Maheshwari v. CCE [2006] 4 STT 303 (New Delhi-CESTAT), for these propositions. 4. Ld. SDR on the other hand submits that the appellant was aware of the provisions of law as he took the registration certificate as provider of architect services, it was for him to discharge the service tax lia....