9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n preferred by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 10-5-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had reduced the penalty amounts by modifying the order of the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the respondents. 2. The respondents failed to furnish the quarterly returns in the prescribed form S-3 before the competent authority within 15/25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the half year ending 3/99. 3. The Revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order-in-appeal. 4. For today s hearing the notice was sent to the respondents and the same was duly received by them on 13-1-2001, as is evident from the acknowledgement received back in the Registry, but none has come present on their behalf. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apparently passed the order by ignoring the provisions of this Section. He has failed to record any reason for reducing the penalty amount when the delay, as is evident from the order-in-original, for non-filing of the returns for the quarters ending March 1998 and June 1998 was in all of 76 days i.e. 20 days delay in filing the return ending March 1998 and 56 days in filing the return ending June ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
