2017 (4) TMI 1342

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the jurisdictional officer calling for details - Penalty u/s 77(1)(c) of Finance Act, 1994 - Held that: - We have specifically ascertained from the ld. AR about the existence of evidence for service of the said letters on the appellant. No such evidence is available on record - In the absence of evidence of service of letters calling for such details, it is not proper to presume such delivery o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ice dated 14-5-2009 was issued to the appellant proposing penalty under Section 77 for their failure to produce information/documents as directed by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Service Tax. The Original Authority held that the appellant violated the provisions of Section 77(1)(c) and imposed penalty of ₹ 200/- per day for the period of continuation of the failure. On appeal, the Com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ve been sent by the Department, they cannot be penalized for non-submission of the details called for by these letters. Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Amidev Agro Care Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (279) E.L.T. 353 (Bom.) to state that sending an order by speed post is not sufficient compliance of the legal provisions. 3. Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X