9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.285/2010 dt. 27.2.2010 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act from Rs.1,49,758/- to Rs.50,000/-. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondent is a manufacturer of Oleoresin which they also export. For this purpose, they have engaged the services of foreign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .50,000/-. 4.1. Ld. DR, reiterating the grounds of appeal, submits that Commissioner (Appeals) having held that there is liability to pay penalty under Section 76 cannot impose any amount lower than the minimum prescribed and, therefore, he seeks setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the penalty and seeks restoration of the order of the original authority in this r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Commissioner (Appeals) was only Rs.50,000/-, they have not chosen to file appeal. However, for the purpose of contesting the prayer in the departmental appeal, they are canvassing the above point. He seeks that penalty should not be enhanced. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The submission of ld. DR that once it is considered to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 80 though the same was justified. However, the respondents are not in appeal and they have also not filed cross objection before me. In the absence of appeal by the respondent, there is, of course, no scope for setting aside penalty of Rs.50,000/-. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any justification for enhancement of the penalty from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,49,758/- as sought for b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
