9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that: - penalty levied by the VATO under Section 86(10) of the DVAT Act affirmed by the OHA by the order dated 20th June 2013 is affirmed. The AT will now consider the said issue afresh particularly in light of the AT’s earlier order dated 1st December 2011 which dealt with a similar issue for the month of November 2006. The AT will pass a fresh order within a period of eight weeks from the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi (AT) in Appeal No. 417/ATVAT/13-14 to the extent that the AT has upheld the imposition of penalty by the Special Commissioner-1, i.e., the Objection Hearing Authority ( OHA ) by the order dated 20th June 2013 under Section 86(10) of the DVAT Act. 4. The Appellant is engaged in the business of marketing of petroleum products and is registered both under the DVAT Act as well as the Central Sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st and penalty. 6. The short ground on which the penalty order under Section 86(10) is sought to be assailed by the Appellant is that the AT failed to consider its earlier order dated 1st December 2011 which concerned the period of November 2006 where a similar issue had arisen. The penalty imposed had been set aside. 7. In para 29 of the impugned order of the AT, the above submission of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discuss it, there appears to be merit in this contention of learned counsel for the Appellant that this issue requires to be revisited by the AT. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court sets aside the portion of the impugned order of the AT dated 27th June 2016 insofar as it affirms the penalty levied by the VATO under Section 86(10) of the DVAT Act and affirmed by the OHA by the order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
