9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 10-5-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had reduced the penalty amounts by modifying the order of the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the respondents. 2. The respondents failed to furnish the quarterly returns in the prescri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed on the respondents by the Deputy Commissioner for the half year ending 3/99. 3. The Revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order-in-appeal. 4. For today's hearing the notice was sent to the respondents and the same was duly received by them on 13-1-2001, as is evident from the acknowledgement received back in the Registry, but none has come present o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unambiguous and mandatory. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has apparently passed the order by ignoring the provisions of this Section. He has failed to record any reason for reducing the penalty amount when the delay, as is evident from the order-in-original, for non-filing of the returns for the quarters ending March 1998 and June 1998 was in all of 76 days i.e. 20 days delay in filing the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
