9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and OIO passed by the Adjudicating Authority and the appeal filed by Revenue. Therefore, First Appellate Authority has gone beyond the scope of the proceedings to hold liability of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Revenue has not filed any appeal against OIA dated 24.07.2012 and ROM order dated 16.08.2012 to contest that Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly upheld imposition of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department by enhancing penalty by ₹ 43,819/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant today when the case was called out for hearing. 3. Sri K.Chaudhari, Supt.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that Adjudicating Authority under OIO dated 28.04.2010 confirmed demand of ₹ 43,819/- along with interest but did not impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 against which appellant did not file any appeal. In the show cause notice imposition of penalty was suggested only under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. A demand of ₹ 43,819/- was also confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, along with interest, but equivalent penalty under Section 76 was not imposed upon the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner(Appeals) has wrongly upheld imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 7. In view of the above observations appeal filed by the appellant with respect to enhanced penalty of ₹ 43,819/- is required to be allowed by setting aside the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority. 8. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. (Operative Portion of the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
