2010 (10) TMI 783

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Finance Act, 1994 and on reduction of penalty under section 77 ibid.   2. The matter was listed for final hearing for today. There was adjournment request on behalf of the respondents. But considering the issue involved is on narrow compass, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself.   3. The learned DR submitted that in this case, the adjudicating authority has imposed p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gone through the impugned order and the show-cause notice. There is proposal of penalty under sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. There is no proposal for imposing penalty under section 78 of the Act and the lower appellate authority has rightly held in paragraph 6.2 of the impugned order wherein it has been held that the penalty under section 78 is beyond the scope of show-cause notice a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder section 77 may be extended to the amount not exceeding Rs. 1,000 thus the maximum penalty can be Rs. 1,000 but there is no restriction for minimum penalty and the lower appellate authority has rightly reduced the penalty from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 3,000 in the instant case. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order same is upheld.   8. Appeal filed by the rev .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X