9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs (Appeals) vide which he confirmed the order-in-original of the Superintendent of Central Excise (Service Tax) imposing penalty of Rs. 14,969/- under Section 76 and Rs. 5,100/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act on the appellants. The appellants have challenged the validity of the impugned order on the ground that no opportunity was afforded to them to prove that they had a sufficient c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their appeal without affording them any opportunity for proving the sufficient cause under Section 80 of the Finance Act for having not filed the return in time and paid the due service tax. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the case of Mukund K. Roongta v. CCE, Jaipur, 1999 (107) E.L.T. 38 (T), wherein the Tribunal has take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax) not speaking one and no opportunity of hearing was also afforded to the appellants before passing the same. He has fairly conceded that the impugned order be set aside and the case be sent back to the original assessing authority for fresh decision. 3. We have gone through the file. The perusal of the order-in-original passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise (Service Tax) shows that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise (Service Tax) had merged is ordered to be set aside and the matter is sent back to the Superintendent (Service Tax) for fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to prove their sufficient cause in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act and then pass a fresh speaking appealable order, as per law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
