9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /487/2010 is by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 61/10 dated 22-4-10. Cross-objection No. ST/CO/39/10 is connected to this appeal. 2. Heard both sides. The respondent is a manufacturer of textile made-ups and they were exporting their products. They availed the services of commission agents for procuring orders overseas and paid for the same. The department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on them. The Commissioner (A) has set aside the penalties under Section 76 and 77. He also gave an option to pay 25% of the penalty if the said amount was paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. 3. The department has filed this appeal seeking for setting aside the order of the Commissioner (A) and restoring the order of the original authority. 4. Ld. SDR, reiterati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CCE, Bhopal v. K.P. Pouches Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 (239) E.L.T. 95 (Tri.-Del.) (sic) [2008 (228) E.L.T. 31 (Del.)] 6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The respondents have paid the entire service tax involved before the issue of show cause notice. It is not in dispute that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en settled in several decisions of the Tribunal including the one relied upon by the consultant that even during the period prior to the amendment of Section 78 w.e.f. 10-5-08, no separate penalty under Section 76 is warranted when there is a penalty under Section 78. In the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the setting aside of penalty under Section 77 is also justified. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
