9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty imposed under section 78, but no order was passed as regards equal amount of penalty imposed u/s 76. held that - matter is remand back to original authority for discussing the penalty. - ST/723 OF 2009 - 1518 OF 2009 - Dated:- 24-12-2009 - M.V. RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND P. KARTHIKEYAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER M.S. Nagaraja for the Appellant. M. Vivekananda for the Respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the original authority. The demand had been raised based on the ledger account of the appellant which showed raising of credit notes to its customers. The original authority had held the figures appearing in ledger account as representing freight amounts exigble to tax payable by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the submission and prayer of the appellant that the ledger ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e demanded from the appellant. Taking into consideration these aspects, the Commissioner had vacated the penalty of Rs. 1,73,977 imposed under section 78 of the Act. In the circumstances equal amount of penalty under section 76 of the Act and penalty of Rs. 1,000 under section 77 of the Act deserve to be set aside. 3. Learned SDR submits that since the impugned order did not sustain any demand f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regards equal amount of penalty imposed under section 76 of the Act. Considering the totality of the case, I find it appropriate that the entire matter relating to the liability of the appellant initially found as Rs. 72,028 and the penalties is remanded to the original authority for taking a fresh decision. Therefore, the penalties sustained in the impugned order are set aside. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
