9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is still in dispute as revealed from the various decisions of the Tribunal – since appellants have already deposited the tax, adjudicating authority has rightly imposed minimum penalty of Rs. 100 each u/s 76 and 77 by exercising his power u/s 80 - 511 of 2007-SM - 394 of 2008-SM(BR) - Dated:- 31-1-2008 - P. K. Das, Member (J) J.S. Bedi for the Appellant. Sumit Kumar for the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty of Rs. 98,900 under section 76 and Rs. 1,94,920 under section 78 of the said Act. 3. The learned Advocate submits that the appellant is engaged in the small business of buying and selling of recharge coupons of mobile phones. There is a dispute of levy of tax on such activities. Therefore, there is a delay in payment of tax. He relied upon the following decisions:- (a) Steel India v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal on identical issue in the case of Renee Telepoint (supra) set aside the penalty under section 78 of the Act and penalty under section 75A of the Act to only Rs. 500 was imposed. The Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel India (supra) held that buying and selling are separate from being a commission agent and prima facie, the demand is not sustainable and stay application w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, penalty is leviable. I find that the levy of tax is still in dispute as revealed from the various decisions of the Tribunal. In any event, the appellants have already deposited the tax. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly exercised his power under section 80 of the said Act. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside and the order of the Assistant Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
