TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., for the Appellant. Shri S.G. Dewalwar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against the Review Adjudication Order No. 34/2007 dated 12-3-2007, passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore. 2. The facts of case are that the appellants provide security service. Their Head Office is in Delhi. The Registration had been taken in Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....him under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 took up the matter and passed the impugned Order-in-Review. In terms of the Order-in-Review, the following penalties were imposed:- (i) Rs.1000/- under Section 75A of the Finance Act. (ii) Rs. 100/- for everyday during which the failure to make payment under Section 76 of the Finance Act. (iii) Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the Act for failure to f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to even waive show cause notice when the assesssee pays the service tax liability along with interest on pointing out by the Department. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Sunitha Shetty [2006 (3) S.T.R. 404 (Kar.) = 2004 (174) E.L.T. 313 (Kar.)] wherein it has been held that once the original authority exercised his powers of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal should uphold the Order-in-Revision passed by the Commissioner of Service tax. 5. On a very careful consideration of the entire matter, we find that in the case law of Karnataka High Court, cited by the learned SDR, the High Court actually upheld the order of the original authority imposing penalty. In this case also, in our view the case law does not help the Revenue. In the present case, ....