9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice did not grant any opportunity of rebuttal to the respondent to defend the penalty under the said Section. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. The Tribunal while deleting the penalty u/s 76 has not discussed and stated the stand of the assessee only. Thus, matter is restored back to the Tribunal to decided whether or not there was any reasonable cause. - Decided in favor of Revenue. - CEAC 24/2011 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2012 - MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR, JJ. For Appellant: Mr. R.C.S. Bhadoria, Adv. For Respondent: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv. SANJIV KHANNA, J: (ORAL) 1. The present appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate, New Delhi imposed penalty of Rs.79,67,977/- under Section 78 of the Act. Further, penalty of Rs.1,000/- was imposed under Section 77 of the Act for each periodical return and penalty of Rs.100/- per day was imposed for failure to pay the tax amount of Rs.79,67,977/- under Section 76 of the Act. 5. The respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Act relying upon the decision of Allahabad High Court in CCE v. Auto World, 2010 (18) STR 5 (All). With regard to the penalty under Section 78, the Tribunal recorded as under:- 8. We are not in disagreement with the learned AR in so far as the levy of penalty under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been specifically stated that the corrigendums were issued invoking Section 78 of the Act. 10. In these circumstances we feel that there is an error and mistake in the impugned order and the reasons given for deleting penalty under Section 78 of the Act cannot be sustained. 11. The decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ashwani Nut Bolts Industries (supra) is distinguishable because in the said case there was a dispute whether or not correigendum was issued or was served. In the present case, this is not an issue or the ground on which the Tribunal has deleted the penalty under Section 78 of the Act. Of course, it will be open to the respondent- assessee to dispute that the corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
