9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue of show cause notice. - ST/138/2009-MUM - A/323/20W-WZB/C-IV/SMB - Dated:- 6-7-2010 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY: Shri S.M. Vaidya, JDR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The Revenue has filed this appeal against the dropping of the penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act by the Commissioner (Appeals) by exercising his discretion under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was collecting money from the customers as deposit and lending loans to different customers, as well as providing the facilities of issuing Banker's cheques on requisition of the customers. While sanctioning the loans, the respondent is collecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion made by the learned R, I find that while passing the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has exercised his power under Section 80 of the Finance Act and observed as under:- "6. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and submission made by the appellant, both oral and written and observed that: 6.1 Order-in-original was received by the appellant on 30-9-08 and appeal is filed in this office on 26-12-2008. The appeal is within time under Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994. 6.2 The issue to be considered in this appeal is the penalty imposed under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. I find that the appellant has deposited the amount of Service tax alongwith interest be fore issue of show-cause notice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of CABS INDIA v. CST Bangalore, reported as 2009-TMI- 32191-CESTAT Bangalore, the CESTAT held that penalty imposed for non-payment of tax - appellants had discharged entire Service tax li ability before the issue of show-cause notice. Therefore there is no justification for enhancing the penalty under Section 78 - Even the other penalties under Sections 76 and 77 are not justified. 6.5 In the case of MR. Coatings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of central Excise Rajkot reported as 2008-TIvH-31527-CESTAT Ahmedabad and 2009 (13) S.T.R. 79 (Tri.-Ahmedabad) it is held that no penalty shall be le viable in terms of Sections 76, 77 and 78 of Section 79 - appellate authority having admitted that there was no mala fide on the part of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
