2017 (7) TMI 1297

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant : Shri VR Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) For The Respondent : Shri Anshul Jain, Advocate ORDER Appeal has been field by Revenue against order-in-appeal no. 34/COMMR(RS)/LTU-M/ST/2016-17 dated 26th July 2016 of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai and pertains to enhancement of penalty on respondent consequent upon denial of eligibility for exem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vided the assessee discharges the tax liability, interest thereon and the penalty within thirty days of the issue of the show cause notice, or to impose penalty equivalent to the tax that has been evaded with the option of restricting penalty to 25% of the determined amount if the tax, interest and the reduced penalty are deposited within 30 days of the issue of the order itself. It is alleged by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to raise any significant objection. In these circumstances, it is moot whether there was any requirement under law to proceed with issue of show cause notice. Having issued show cause notice, the proceedings having culminated and penalty imposed under section 78 to the extent of 15% of the tax dues, which survives only on account of non-challenge on the part of the respondent, the appeal of Revenu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X