9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the penalty imposed by the Original Authority. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a PSU providing telecommunication services. The present appeal r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed appeal before the Commissioner who refused to drop the penalty on the ground that Section 80 of the Finance Act was omitted w.e.f. 14.05.2015 and therefore, he upheld the penalty. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Guntur Vs. Narasaraopet Municipality, 2015 (39) STR 800 (AP). (ii) Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Mangalore, 2015 (40) STR 1093 (Tri. Bang.). (iii) Punjab Chemicals & Crop Protection Ltd. Vs. CCE Chandigarh, 2017 (47) STR 345 (Tri. Chan.). (iv) Commr. of S.T., Bangalore Vs. Motor World, 2012 (27) STR 225 (Kar.). (v) Modern Woolens Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Jaipur-II, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly applicable in the present case wherein it has been consistently held that in the case of PSU, there cannot be any malafide intent to avail irregular and unavailable credit. Therefore, by following the ratio of the above said decisions, I set aside the penalty by allowing the appeal of the appellant.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 31/01/2019) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
