9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was reasonably possible on the material - If the discretion exercised by the Tribunal is reasonable and in a judicial manner, the fact that the Appellate Court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the Tribunal's exercise of discretion. Once it is a discretion to be exercised there can be no substantial questions of law arising thereof. Tribunal has given reasons in the impugned order why imposition of penalty is not merited. There are no perversity in the exercise of discretion - there are no substantial questions of law arising - appeal dismissed. - K. R. SHRIRAM JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. P. S. Cardozo a/w Mr. Ram Ochani. For the Respondent : Mr. Prakash Shah a/w. Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 ? (E) Whether in the fact and circumstance of the case the aspect of ignorance of provisions of law can be held to be sufficient ground for setting for setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 ? (F) Whether the Hon ble CESTAT was right in passing the order by relaying on the judgment dated 08.09.2021 in the case of C.C.E S.T. LTU Bangalore vs. Adecco flexion workplace Solution Ltd. (2012(26) S.T.R. 3 (Kar) as the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable in the present case ? (G) Whether the Hon ble CESTAT was justified in passing the order by not appreciating the ratio of judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning Weaving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught not to reassess the material and seek to reach a different conclusion from the one reached by the Tribunal if one reached by the Tribunal was reasonably possible on the material. The Appellate Court would also normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage, it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion exercised by the Tribunal is reasonable and in a judicial manner, the fact that the Appellate Court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the Tribunal's exercise of discretion. 6. Once it is a discretion to be exercised there can be no substantial questions of law arising t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
