9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - All these appellants are against Revisional Order Passed under Section 84 of Finance Act, 1994 levying penalty under Sections 75A, 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The quantum of levy has varied in all such cases. Ld. Counsel Shri Malhotra Appearing on behalf of all the appellants submits that the Revisional order has intended to impose penalty without any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced that the appellants failed to seek registration, penalty was imposable. It has been enlightened to us in the course of hearing that penalty imposable under Section 75A no more remains in the statute book from 10-9-05. As a result of this, although Section 75A was also within the purview of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, it is bound to be deleted from the purview of Section 80 thereafter. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record for exercise of jurisdiction over them. The revisionary power is exercisable only if the act of the authorities below is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. How the orders passed by Adjudicating Authority have caused prejudice that was not examined nor any cogent reason appears in the order. Therefore, levy of penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 which are severe in na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... affairs of the appellants. However, the appellants after getting revised figures came forward to pay the taxes and revised returns were filed. The orders do not indicate the length of failure on the part of the appellants to impute their mala fide in filing their revised returns. These observations we have made above was from the appeal record No. 309/08. Finding that the order has not demonstrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
