9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)] . - Two applications filed by the appellant are before us. The applicant (appellant) is the Coir Board, who has obtained the requisite clearance from the Committee of Secretaries to pursue the appeal. In a Show-Cause Notice dated 20-5-2002, the Deputy Commissioner had proposed to levy service tax from the Coir Board for the period from September 1999 to March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After giving the party an opportunity of being heard, the Commissioner passed the impugned order, wherein he directed that the value of all taxable services rendered by the Coir Board be determined under the best of judgment to be worked out by the jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and the amount of tax be quantified accordingly. The Commissioner also held the assessee liable to pay int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 76 of the Act is unsustainable in law as this penalty has been introduced by way of a corrigendum, for which the Commissioner has no authority in law, and (d) that the proceedings of the Commissioner are vitiated by the fact that a show-cause notice was not issued under Section 84 of the Act for revising the Deputy Commissioner's decision. 3. We have heard the learned DR also. He has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of Central Excise to issue show-cause notices before passing revisionary orders under Section 84 of the Act. This Commissioner, however, did not issue any such notice to the appellant. We further note that the very complexion of the penalty imposed on the assessee was changed by the Commissioner when he substituted 'Section 76' for 'Section 78' and, that too, without notice to the party. Thus w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
