9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before imposing penalty - It is well settled that the imposition of penalty is based on the facts and law of the case – impugned order was passed without considering the submission of the Appellant - impugned order is set aside - matter is remanded to Commissioner - 90 of 2007-SM (BR) - 1191/2008-SM(BR)/(PB) - Dated:- 18-7-2008 - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Shri H. Bajaj, Advocate for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the amount as deposited by them and refrained from imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Act. By Revised Order, Commissioner of Central Excise imposed penalty of Rs.1,35,000.00 under Section 76 of the Act. In support of his contention that the Appellant is not within the definition of "Consulting Engineering", the ld. Advocate relied upon the decision of the Tribunal as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be less than Rs.100/- per day but which may extend to Rs.200/- per day. It is noted that the Commissioner had not discussed the facts and circumstances of the case before imposing penalty. It is well settled that the imposition of penalty is based on the facts and law of the case. In the present case, the Commissioner passed the order without considering the submission of the Appellant. So, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
