9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000 - [Order]. - This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order-in-appeal dated 3-8-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide which he confirmed the order-in-original of the Superintendent of Central Excise (Service Tax) imposing penalty of Rs. 14,969/- under Section 76 and Rs. 5,100/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act on the appellants. The appellants have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended that even the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) while disposing of the appeal has failed to go into this aspect of the matter and dismissed their appeal without affording them any opportunity for proving the sufficient cause under Section 80 of the Finance Act for having not filed the return in time and paid the due service tax. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside. In support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the other hand, has not been able to refute the contention of the learned consultant that the order-in-original of the Superintendent of Central Excise ( Service Tax) not speaking one and no opportunity of hearing was also afforded to the appellants before passing the same. He has fairly conceded that the impugned order be set aside and the case be sent back to the original assessing authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in violation of the principles of natural justice. Resultantly, the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in which the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise ( Service Tax) had merged is ordered to be set aside and the matter is sent back to the Superintendent (Service Tax) for fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to prove their suffici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
