9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n behalf of the Revenue. None appears on behalf of the Revenue. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents were providing maintenance and repair service to M/s. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. The respondent is a proprietorship firm. Shri Pradeep Kumar, Proprietor of the respondent-firm appeared before the Central Excise Officers in response to summon along with Bill Books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Act. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously observed that to impose penalty mens rea is essential. It is his submission that the ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. 3. After hearing the ld. DR and on perusal of the records, I find that Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 provides that, "notwithstanding anything contained i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onduct and facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the respondent proved that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set aside the penalties. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court on 3-6-2009) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
