2008 (4) TMI 294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. Ms. Sudha Koka for the Respondent. T.K. Jayaraman, Technical Member. - This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 143/2006-ST, dated 20-6-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin. 2. Revenue proceeded against the appellant rendering services of "Travel Agent" for payment of Service Tax. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issue of show- cause notice the appellant paid entire amount of Rs. 5,97,850. Hence, it was urged that harsh penalty is not warranted. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had given a finding that the appellant remitted the service tax only after the department detected evasion. Therefore, they are liable to penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act. The appellant relied on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....otice, the Adjudicating Authority had imposed heavy penalty, fine, and interest alleging evasion. There is no proof of evasion except by a version of the appellants' own staff that due to stiff competition, the firm used to leave out high value tickets like those to Europe etc. The appellant was having no intention to evade Service Tax. 6. The learned Departmental Representative stated that it ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lity, once the actual amount was computed the same was paid before the adjudication. He requested for taking a lenient view as the penalties imposed are very harsh. He challenged the levy of interest also. As the entire amount of service tax has been paid partly before the issue of show-cause notice and partly before the adjudication order was issued, imposition of heavy penalties is not warranted....