2007 (3) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 78,090/- and Rs. 12,000/- respectively. 2. Ld. DR submitted that like all other assessee, Respondent should be equally dealt under the law and breach of law should be seriously viewed. Mere discharge of the tax amount shall not exonerate the Respondent from penal consequence of law. Ld. DR cited Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. ETA Engineering Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... artment. Although the Respondent had cooperated to Revenue, co-operative attitude and for the findings of the lower Appellate Authority that Department hesitated to issue registration to the Respondent, the matter was under confusion as to determination of liability. 4. Heard both sides. There is no difference of opinion about realization of levy from the Respondent in view of incidence of the le .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iated that Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, exonerates penalty, if there is reasonable cause. The Larger Bench's decision cited by the Revenue, supports such proposition in terms of para 8 of the reported order. The reason cited by the lower Appellate Authority appears to be appealable reason and does not call for imposition of penalty. 6. The lower appellate authority appears to have passed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X