2007 (6) TMI 520

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ding reduction in penalty which was enhanced by Commissioner (Appeals) from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 1,02,581 on the ground that there has been delay in payment of service tax repeatedly and the original authority has not given any justification for reducing the penalty under provision of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The learned advocate for the appellants submits that the provision of section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nly and this has been held by the Larger Bench in the case of ETA Engg. Ltd. v. CCE 2004 (174) ELT 19/[2007] 8 STT 61 (New Delhi - CESTAT). He further submits that there are no grounds for reducing the penalty under section 80 as the default has been repeated and no worthwhile reasons have been brought out for reducing the penalty. 4. I have considered the submissions. I find that Larger Bench de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X