2011 (9) TMI 690

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bout the cause shown, exercised its power under Sec. 80 of the Act and did not impose penalty, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to interfere with such discretionary orders and impose penalty in pursuance of his revisional jurisdiction - Appeal is dismissed - 53 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 22-9-2011 - N. Kumar and Ravi Malimath, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri N.R. Bhaskar, Advocate, for the Appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (174) E.L.T. 313 (Kar.) = 2006 (3) S.T.R. 404 (Kar.) and also the judgment of the Tribunal in M/s. Majestic Mobikes (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. [2008 (11) S.T.R. 609 (Tri.)] held that the Commissioner was not justified in exercising his suo motu powers to interfere with a discretionary order passed by the original authority where he was satisfied with the cause shown and he had not imposed penalty. Aggriev .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X