TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri Venkatachalam, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order].- This is an application filed by M/s. Phoenix Marketing, Salem, for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of penalties imposed on the appellants under various Sections of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....against Rs.1,29,887/- determined by the original authority. The Commissioner (A) vacated the penalty of Rs. 500/- imposed under Section 75A of the appellants and upheld the penalty of Rs.1000/- imposed under Section 77 of the Act. Penalties equal to the service tax demanded of Rs.1,29,887/- each imposed under Sections 76 and 78 were reduced to Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively. 2. Moving....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....introduced in July, 2003; the liability to tax on the incentives received remains unsettled as the same was disputed in the cross objection filed by the appellants in the instant appeal filed by the Revenue. The ld. Counsel relies on the following decisions of this Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal had vacated the penalties imposed on the appellants therein in terms of Section 80 of the Act. The Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the appellants apparently occurred owing to their ignorance of statutory provisions. Relying on a judgment of the apex Court in Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), the ld. Counsel had argued that in the absence of evidence that the appellants had not registered and failed to pay service tax on account of fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement ....