TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 248
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st 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 service tax since he has entered into a contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed 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 challenging the imposition of penalty under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 liability as mandated. Having not done so, the pe....