TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n conferred on him under Sec. 80 of the Act and not om an interpretation of Sec. 76 of the Act, which mandates the levying of penalty of Rs, 100/- per every day of delay in filling the returns - appeal dismissed. - CEA 04/2004 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2008 - Mr. Deepak Verma Mr. Anand Byrareddy For the Appellant: Sri. J.K. Jagadish for Sri. R. Veerendra Sharma Advocate For the Respondent: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y filling an appeal. The said appeal has been disposed of by this Court on 14.09.2004 and the judgement pronounced therein is reported in 2004 (174) ELT 313 (Kar). The relevant portion of the said judgment, which finds place in para (6) is reproduced herein below:- 6. Having regard to the facts do not find in the order Annexure-B, the Commissioner proceeded to on an erroneous impression that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der passed by the Commissioner. As noticed by us earlier, the Deputy Commissioner has preceded to levy the penalty in exercise of the discretion conferred on him under Sec. 80 of the Act and not om an interpretation of Sec. 76 of the Act, which mandates the levying of penalty of Rs, 100/- per every day of delay in filling the returns as contended by Sri. Veerendra Sharma, learned counsel appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
