2009 (4) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt of India (Indirect Taxes), for the appellant. [Judgment per M.M. KUMAR, J.]. - The revenue has challenged order dated 31.3.2008, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') by invoking Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 (for brevity, 'the Act'). It has been claimed that the fol .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aising it to Rs. 31,652/-. The Commissioner also recorded the finding that the assessee had suppressed the value of taxable service. However, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner passed in exercise of revisional power and restored the order-in-original by observing that leniency shown by the original authority in terms of Section 80 of the Act did not suffer from any illegality and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... id failure. The provision under Section 78 of the Act is required to be acted upon in the absence of finding of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts etc., as envisaged by Section 78 of the Act. The order-in-original dated 15.6.2005 (A-1) does not record any finding of fraud, mis-statement etc., which could have been the basis for acquiring jurisdiction to impose the penalty. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X