9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - For Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Revision dated 17.1.2011, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Cochin, vide which the Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 1,33,257/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Revision, the appellant has filed the present appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under Section 78 was not imposed, the Commissioner under sub-section (1) of Section 84 of the Finance Act invoked revisionary jurisdiction and issued a notice to the assessee who appeared and submitted that no revision under Section 84 would lie when the issue is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), but the learned Commissioner after hearing the assessee exercised her power of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 78 is barred by law as both the penalties under Sections 76 & 78 are not mutually exclusive. The learned counsel also submits that this Bench by Final Order No. 21174/2016 dated 17.11.2016 has considered the very same issue in the case of M/s Federal Bank Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Cochin and allowed the assessee's appeal by following the various judgements rendered by various judici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
