9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Adjudicating Authority. It transpires that the Respondents deliberately failed to pay the tax - In this situation, the penalty under Section 78 of the Act is warranted – impugned order setting aside penalty u/s 78, is contrary to facts and law - if the tax is deposited within 30 days from the receipt of the O-I-A, the penalty would be reduced to 25% of tax - ST/385-388/2007-SM(BR) - 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by them from M/s. Surya Roshni Ltd. But no reply was received. Show cause notices all dated 17-4-2006 were issued proposing demand of tax, penalties and interest. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand of tax and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 77 of the Act along with interest. Commissioner (Appeals) set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After hearing the ld. DR and on perusal of the records, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) re-determined the tax liability. It is seen that the Respondents did not attend the adjudication proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority. It was also noticed that in spite of directions of the Superintendent of Central Excise, the Respondent deliberately avoided to pay the tax. The Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner (Appeals) redetermined the tax liability. Proviso to Section 78 (1) of the Act provides penalty of 25% of duty if tax demanded is deposited within 30 days of the order. In view of that, if the Respondents deposited the tax within 30 days from the receipt of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the penalty would be reduced to 25% of tax otherwise penalty would be equal to the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
