9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty - In view of HC decision in case of CCE, Bangalore-II v. Sunitha Shetty, it is held that revisional authority did not lave powers to revise a decision of the competent authority which had in exercise of the discretion conferred on it u/s 80, consciously refrained from imposing penalty on the assessee. - S/123/2008 - 957/2008 - Dated:- 5-9-2008 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Ms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efault in payment of service tax had been occasioned by bona fide belief of the appellants that they were not required to pay service tax on the activity undertaken by them during the material period. 3. The authorized representative of the appellants submits that when the relevant contract was executed between the appellants and its client ONGC, service in question had not been brought under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etty - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 404 (Kar.) = 2004 (174) E.L.T. 313 (Kar.). It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above judgment that the discretion exercised by the Dy. Commissioner in imposing penalty or the service tax assessee could not be reviewed by the Commissioner. Their Lordships made the above observation upholding the authority of the Dy. Commissioner to levy penalty in ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efully considered the facts o the case and the rival submissions. I find that the original authority exercised the discretion under Section 80 of the Act and refrained from imposing penalty on the appellants under various sections of the Act. He had made the following categorical finding and order as regards the penal liability of the appellants. "In exercise of the powers conferred on me under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
