9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, Adv. for Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. VINEET KOTHARI J 1. The Assessee-M/s.Archi Technics, Mangaluru - a partnership firm has filed this appeal u/s.35G(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned CESTAT on 12.01.2015 dismissing the assessee's appeal in Final Order No.20080/2015 in ST/2683/2011-SM, rejecting the prayer of the appellant-assessee to set aside p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee even relied upon another Division Bench decision of the Tribunal at Principal Bench, New Delhi itself in the case of Raj Kumar Ora vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2009(14) S.T.R. 836 (Tri. - Del.)] in which the Division Bench of the Tribunal waived similar penalty of Rs. 66,370/- in view of the fact that the appellant was a small business man and his father was suffering fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, unless the relevant details are discussed, the Tribunal could not have brushed aside these reasons by one liner, especially when the Division Bench decision of the Tribunal in almost similar circumstances on account of cancer of the father of the proprietor of the service provider firm, the Division Bench set aside the penalty in the aforesaid case of Raj Kumar Ora (supra). The Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
