9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (Appeals) passed on 11.12.2006 upholding the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority under the provisions of Section 75-A, 76 and 78 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.The appellant was authorised dealer of Hyundai cars and was also providing service in relation to promoting and marketing various car loan schemes of the Bank and financial institutions. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .02.2006, it was ordered to be adjusted towards the payment of Service Tax confirmed under the order. Penalties were imposed of Rs.500/- under Section 75A; of Rs.1,27,543/- under Section 76 of the Act; and of Rs.1000/- under Section 78 of the Act. 3.The Appellate Commissioner, while dealing with the contention of the appellant that penalties ought not to have been imposed, held in paragrap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n cases falling under the provisions of Section 76 of the Act. There appears to be an obvious error committed in proceeding on such assumptions because the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 do not have any parallel in Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Under Section 80 of the said Act, it is provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be re-considered by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order is, therefore, set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration and decision, in accordance with law and in light of this judgment. The appeal is accordingly allowed by way of remand. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on the 23RD day of November, 2007) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
