9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sable under Section 78 and as well as 76 and there was no specific provision that when penalty under Section 78 is imposable, the penalty under Section 76 would not be imposable - order of commissioner (appeals) setting aside the penalty under Section 76 is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The Assistant Commissioner’s order with regard to imposition of penalty under Section 76 is restore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Registrar, SM Appeal Branch and have requested for decision of this appeal on merit. 3. Heard the learned Departmental Representative. He pleaded the issue involved in this case has been decided in the Department's favour by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE ST, Bangalore vs. First Flight Couriers Ltd. reported in 2007 (8) S.T.R. 225 (HC-KAR-ST) and also recent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra) and also by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Travels Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh (supra). In view of this, the impugned order setting aside the penalty under Section 76 is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The Assistant Commissioner's order with regard to imposition of penalty under Section 76 is restored. Revenue's appeal is allowed. (Dictated and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
