2007 (3) TMI 768

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y levied by adjudicating authority should not have been waived by the Ld. Appellate Authority without any reason and to support such contention, the Ld. D.R. relied on the larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of ETA Engg. Ltd. vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Chennai reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 19 (Tri. LB). He, further, submitted that any breach of law if permitted to perpetuate, that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per and the appellate order when passed on 17/5/2005, the reported decision was very well available before the appellate authority. Therefore, ignorance of such decision has caused irreparable loss to the Revenue. 4) Unfortunately, the Ld. D.R. while arguing, has ignored the overriding provision in section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 which was also subject matter of discussion in the recorded judge .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lt in the light of provisions contained in Section 80. It is needless to mention that Section 80 is overriding section and has primacy over section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellate authority while deciding the matter shall offer fair opportunity to the Respondent to state the cause/ reason which prevented them to comply to the provision of section 76 and consider the reasons so stated to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X