TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent: A. K. Madan ORDER C. N. B. Nair (Technical Member) 1. Heard both sides and perused record. 2. We find that the issue raised remains settled in favour of the revenue by the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of C.K. Jideesh v. Union of India 2006 (1) STR 3. Accordingly, we proceed with the appeals after dispensing with the requirement for pre-deposit. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raphic service. It is his contention that in such a case, penalty is not justified. There is merit in this contention. Accordingly, the penalty of ₹ 15,000 imposed is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed to this extent. 5. Appeal No. ST/91/06 of the revenue seeks enhancement of penalty. Since we have already ordered that penalty is not warranted, there is no merit in the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
