2013 (5) TMI 726

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 78 - held that:- In view of the fact that Delhi Benches fall under the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court and as such, are bound by the declaration of the law by the said High Court and also in view of fact that, that the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision is later in point of time, and that both the decision stand discussed by the decision of CCE, Haldia vs. Mittal Technopack P. Ltd. ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hallenged the said order before Commissioner (Appeals), who accepted their appeal and imposed penalty under Section 76. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee. 3. We find that the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CCE vs. First Flight Courier Ltd. reported in 2011 (22) S.T.R. 622 (P H) has held that imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, prior .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the same should be followed. He also draws our attention to another decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Haldia vs. Mittal Technopack P. Ltd. reported in 2012 TIOL 1507 CESTAT KOL, wherein Tribunal by taking note of both the decisions of the Hon ble High Court has followed Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court. 6. In view of the fact that Delhi Benches fall under the jurisdiction of P .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X