JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.—The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal, which though upheld the action of the assessing authority in levying duty and interest on the services rendered but set aside the levying of penalty. 2. The assessee is a manufacturer and supplier of centralized lubrication system and it also undertakes erection and commissioning at site as a part of their business activity. They filed ST3 return for the period ending September 30, 2003 claiming exemption in respect of erection and commissioning service as the consideration paid for the said amount was also included in the excisable value of the final products. The commissioning, erection and service rendered in that connection was brought under the services with effect from July 1, 2003. The assessee did not pay the service tax on the value of commission and erection services on the ground that it forms part of the finished product and that they have paid the excise duty on the same. However, the authorities held that the assessee is liable to pay the service tax on the value of erection and commissioning services. Therefore, they levied the service tax, interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal. The Commissioner of Appeals dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the assessing authority. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the levy of service tax but set aside the order regarding imposition of penalty. The assessee has accepted the order of the Tribunal and paid the service tax and interest thereon on the commissioning and erection of services. It is the Revenue, which has preferred an appeal against the order of the Tribunal. 3. The learned counsel for the Revenue assailing the impugned order contends that the penalty payable under section 76 is automatic and there is no discretion left to the authorities to waive or reduce the penalty payable. Moreover, the Appellate Tribunal was in total error in coming to the conclusion that there are no mala fides on the part of the assessee without there being any material on record. 4. Moreover, the Appellate Tribunal was in total error in coming to the conclusion that there are no mala fides on the part of the assessee without there being any material on record. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee was throughout contending that he has already paid the excise duty on the value of erection and commissioning services and till June 26, 2003, there was no service tax leviable on the said services which was not liable to pay. After contesting the matter before the Tribunal, he accepted the order of the Tribunal and paid the service tax as well as the interest payable thereon. Therefore in those circumstances, he submits that there is no liability to pay penalty as contended by the Revenue. 5. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law : Whether in the facts and circumstances of case, the CESTAT, SZB, Bangalore, was legal and correct in setting aside penalty imposed under section 76 of the Act more particularly when the confirmation in respect of demand of service tax and interest leviable thereon against the respondent was upheld by the honourable Tribunal ? 6. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee undertakes not only manufacture and sale of its products. It also erects and commissions the finished products. The customer is charged for the services rendered as well as the value for manufactured products. Admittedly, up to June 20, 2003 no service tax was leviable on erection and commission work. It was only subjected to tax from July 1, 2003. The assessee has paid the excise duty on the value of the product notwithstanding the services rendered. It is in that context, they were contending that there cannot be levy- of tax under two parliamentary legislations. However, the excise duty was levied on the aspect of manufacture and service tax is levied on the aspect of services rendered. Therefore, it will not amount to payment of tax twice. After contesting the matter before the Tribunal, the assessee has paid the service tax and interest thereon. It is in these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any wilful attempt to evade the payment of tax on the part of the assessee. Therefore, it will not amount to payment of tax twice. After contesting the matter before the Tribunal, the assessee has paid the service tax and interest thereon. It is in these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any wilful attempt to evade the payment of tax on the part of the assessee. Moreover, the commissioning, installation and erection work was brought to service tax only from July 1, 2003 and now the tax claimed is only for the period July 1, 2003 to September 30, 2003. It is in the nature of transitional period and the benefit of doubt that existed in the mind of the assessee is to be given to him. It constitutes a reasonable cause for not paying the service tax in view of section 80. The Tribunal was justified in interfering with the levy of penalty and in setting aside the same. We do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.