ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. All the three appeals are being disposed off by a common order as the issue involved is identical and all three arise from the same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals).
2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Prakash Mehta Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri C. Lama Ld. JDR, I find that the appellants are owner of by photo lab and photo studio, which was made liable to service tax w.e.f. 16.7.2001. However, the appellant submits that during the said period there was lot of confusion as to whether the photographer has to pay tax or the photo lab has to pay the tax. Accordingly, tax was not being deposited by them, which was ultimately deposited in December 2003 along with interest amount. Proceedings were initiated against them, which culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority levying penalty under Section 76 as also under Section 78 of the Finance Act. The said order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Duty liability is not being disputed by the appellant. In fact it is their case that the appellants having deposited the entire amount of duty along with interest and 25% of the penalty amount imposed under Section 78, the balance penalties imposed under the said Section 76 should be set aside. I find that as contested by Ld. Advocate the dispute relates to the initial periods of the levy of service tax and there was confusion in the industry. By taking said factor and the fact that the duty stands deposited along with interest and the fact that 25% of penalty has already been deposited and is not being disputed, I set aside the balance amount of penalties imposed on all the three appellants. Appeals are disposed off in above terms.
(Dictated in court)