2008 (5) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not challenged by the Revenue before the Appellate Authority - As the demand is not sustainable, enhancement of penalty by the Revision order is also not maintainable - 554/07-SM - - - Dated:- 27-5-2008 - Mr. P. K. Das, Member(Judicial) Atul Gupta , C.A. for the Appellant. A.K. Rastogi, DR for the Respondent. [Order per Mr P.K. Das, Memb .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on of "Commission Agent". Since the demand relates to the period 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 and this category has been brought under taxable net w.e.f. 14.5.04, I hold that demand is not sustainable." 2. During the pendency of the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner revised the Adjudication order and enhanced the penalty. The Appellants filed appeal against the Revision order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X