2011 (2) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erty Dealers, Ludhiana (2010 (7) TMI 255 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) – Revenue appeal dismissed
Adarsh Kumar Goel and Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ Appellant Represented by: Mr. H P S Ghuman, Senior Standing Counsel JUDGEMENT Per: Adarsh Kumar Geol: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s follows:- "I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. The tax liability is not in dispute and the same has been paid along with interest. Commissioner(Appeals) relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the Financers (supra) held that once penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act, no penalty was imposable under Section 76 of the Act. It has not been shown any ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the respondent has admittedly paid 25% of the penalty within one month from the date of the order of the original authority. Therefore, the waiver of penalty in excess of 25% of the Service Tax evaded under Section 78 is also justified and, therefore, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) calls for no interference." Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that the matter is covered against .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X