9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Saxena, Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per : Ashok K Arya Both the sides have been heard in detail. 2. The appellant viz., Malayalam Communication Ltd. has filed this appeal against the revision order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Thiruvananthapuram under the then provisions of Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner in this revision order has held that no pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 76. She cited the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE vs. Shiva Builders decided on 6.4.2011 in appeal STA No.51 of 2010 saying that when appeal had been preferred before Commissioner (A) exercise of power under Section 84(4) of Finance Act, 1994 was not valid. 5. It is observed that during the relevant period Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revision he/she did not have any revision power in respect of an issue, if appeal against such an issue was pending before Commissioner (A) during the relevant period. From the facts on records, it is found that Commissioner in his revision order passed an order in respect of penalty under provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. He also passed the order upholding the demands and penalti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Commissioner in respect of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 is sustainable as this issue was not challenged by the appellant before Commissioner (A). 6.1 It is made clear that the appeal filed by the appellant before Commissioner (A) is a valid exercise and Commissioner (A) is free to decide the issue which are before him under the said appeal. It is also hereby made clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
