9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal against the order of the Commissioner No. 03/2010 ST(R), dated 30-6-2010 by which the order of the original authority dated 29-12-2008 was revised under section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 by enhancing the penalty imposed under section 78 from Rs. 1,42,550 to Rs. 1,95,328. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Relevant facts in brief are as follows :-- (a) Show-cause notice dated 24-7-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal authority imposing penalties under sections 76 and 78 was in challenge before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner has issued the impugned order on 30-6-2010, after the passing of the order on party's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 31-5-2010. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant challenged both the penalties imposed under sections 76 and 78 before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y same order of the original authority dated 29-12-2008, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) after carefully considering the submissions from both sides set aside the penalty under section 76 and upheld the penalty of Rs. 1,42,550 under section 78. It is clear that sustainability of penalty under section 78 was an issue before the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
