2008 (2) TMI 296

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Accountant had not deposited the tax - commissioner is not justified in imposing penalty under sections 76 and 77 in its revision order, when adjudication authority itself has waived penalty in exercise of powers of section 80 - 640 of 2007-SM (BR) - 432/08-SM - Dated:- 6-2-2008 - P. K. Das, Member (J) A.K. Rastogi for the Respondent. ORDER 1. None appeared on behalf of the app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order but reduced the penalty of 25 per cent of duty amount as the tax was deposited before issue of the show-cause notice. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Central Excise revised the adjudication order and imposed penalty under sections 76 and 77. 3. It is seen from the adjudication order that the appellant's .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Act. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE v. Sunitha Shetty [Civil Petition Nos. 1934 and 1992-1994 of 2003, dated14-9-2004], held that the adjudicating authority had exercised the powers conferred on him under section 80 of the Act having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and revision of such order is not justified. In the present case, I find that the adjudicatin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X