HOYSALA DEVELOPERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE applicant filed this application for waiver of pre -deposit of penalties imposed by the Commissioner under the Review proceedings under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The applicant had paid Service Tax along with interest and the adjudicating authority, by invoking the provisions of Section 80, dropped the proposal for imposing penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. The contention of the applicant is that the Commissioner of Service Tax is not justified in reviewing the order passed by the adjudicating authority, as the adjudicating authority has exercised discretion conferred under Section 80 of the Finance Act and relied upon the decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore -III v. Sunitha Shetty reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 404 (Kar.) = 2004 (174) E.L.T. 313 (Kar.).

(3.) THE contention of Revenue is that in the present case, demand of Service Tax is confirmed by invoking larger period on the ground of suppression of facts. The contention is that as the applicants accepted the adjudication order whereby the extended period of limitation was invoked on the ground of suppression, therefore, the impugned order is rightly passed.