9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority, in its discretion has held that no penalty is leviable, by virtue of Section 80 of the Act, the revisional authority cannot invoke its jurisdiction and impose penalty for the first time - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/157/2009 - ORDER No. A/11076 / 2016 - Dated:- 29-9-2016 - Mr. P. M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri S. J. Vyas, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore vs. Motor World [2012 (27) S.T.R. 225 (Kar.)]. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorised Representative for Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner. 4. On careful consideration of the arguments of both sides and examination of records, we find that the original adjudicating authority in his order dated 12.03.2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not correct and it requires re-calculation and it will be paid immediately after confirmation of actual amount received. Further, I rely decision of Hon ble Tribunal in the case of M/s Smitha Shetty-2003 (146) E.L.T. 142 Tri. Bang. In the said decision, the Hon ble Tribunal held that when there was a technical or judicial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flowed a bonafide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78. Therefore, I refrain from imposing penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act in terms of Section 80 of the Act. 5. It is observed that the Commissioner in the impugned order has however set-aside the said decision of the original adjudicating authority waiving penalties under Section 80 of the Act on the ground that the Circular No. F. No. 354/59/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
