2009 (7) TMI 482

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order]. - The relevant fact of the case, in brief, are that during the course of audit of M/s. Spice Comimmication (P) Ltd. it has been noticed that they have appointed dealers/franchisees throughout the State of Punjab for providing Mobile Telephone services and they have entered into contract with each service provider. The appellants is one of the dealers/franchisees of Spice Communication (P) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... revised the adjudication order under Section 84 of the Act. By the impugned order, the Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs.500/- under Section 75A, Rs.100/- per day subject to maximum of Rs.7,848/- under Section 78 and penalty of Rs.7,848/- under Section 78 of the Act for suppressing the value of taxable service from the department. Hence, the appellant filed this appeal. 2. Learned D.R. on behal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... therefore, imposition of penalty under Section 78 is not justified. The findings of the Commissioner is that the original exercised power without assigning any reason. I am unable to accept the findings of the Commissioner. On perusal of the adjudication order, I find that after considering the facts of the case the original authority exercised the power under Section 80. It is also noticed that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X