2011 (1) TMI 390

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he 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 - Thus, it is clear that sustainability of penalty under section 78 was an issue before the Commissioner (Appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Service Tax along with interest and imposing penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. (b) The party filed an appeal against the said order on 23-2-2009 before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 31-5-2010 upheld the order of the original authority insofar as the same related to imposition of penalty under section 78 and set aside the penal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 proposing enhancement of penalty under section 78 was not permissible. However, she fairly submits that it appears that these facts were not brought to the notice of the Commissioner during the revision proceedings. 5. Learned DR submits that records do not indicate that the Commissioner was made aware of the appeal proceedings before the Commissioner (Appea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X