TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Petitioners in all these Civil Petitions that out of an order dated 27th of June 2003 made in ST Nos. 4/2002, 6/2002, 10/2002 and 15/2002, the questions of law set out herein-below would arise for consideration :- 1. Whether the reviewing authority's interpretation of provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 in Order-in-Review No. 8/2002, dated 29-1-2002/1-2-2002 that minimu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i N. Anand, Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 and Shri G.K.V. Murthy, Counsel for Respondent No. 2. in these Petitions. 4. No doubt it is the contention of Shri Veerendra Sharma that the Tribunal has mis-directed itself by proceeding on the basis that minimum of Rs. 100/- per day is not prescribed under Sec. 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, and therefore the questions formulated above are requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bes for the levy of minimum penalty of Rs. 100/- per day, the Authority has the discretion under Sec. 80 of the Act to waive the penalty. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, we do not find in the order Annexure-B, the Commissioner proceeded to levy the penalty referred to above on an erroneous impression that he is not required to levy penalty of Rs. 100/- per day, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us earlier, the Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to levy the penalty in exercise of the discretion conferred on him under Sec. 80 of the Act and not on an interpretation of Sec. 76 of the Act, which mandates the levying of penalty of Rs. 100/- per every day of delay in filing the returns as contended by Sri Veerendra Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 7. In the light as of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
