9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and has made a clear finding that the dispute was a bona fide dispute supported by the Supreme Court’s decision. The said finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not challenged by the Revenue. Accordingly, we are of the view that when the dispute was a legal and a bona fide dispute and no mala fide is attributable to the appellant, the question of imposition of penalty does not arise - Decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal observed that the Commissioner is at liberty to re-consider the imposition of penalty after re-determining the quantum of duty against the appellant. 2. In de novo proceedings, demand of duty was quantified by the original adjudicating authority, which was around Rs. 1.5 Crores. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 60 Lakhs on the appellant. On appeal against the said order praying for settin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, 1944. 3. As is seen from the above, the Commissioner (Appeals) is not attributing any mala fide to the appellant and has made a clear finding that the dispute was a bona fide dispute supported by the Supreme Court s decision. The said finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not challenged by the Revenue. Accordingly, we are of the view that when the dispute was a legal and a bona fide dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
