TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that: - the show cause notice itself is vague in as much there is no evidence on record that they have not submitted the list of relevant documents at the time of filing of return for the first time, in terms of Rule 5(2) of S.T. Rules, 1994. Based on a mere premise that appellant appeared not to have filed the returns and imposing penalty after a period of 10 years is not legally sustainable – ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failure to submit the list of records maintained by them in accordance with Rule 5(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. After the proceedings, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty ₹ 10,000/- on the appellants under Section 77 (2) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 which was upheld by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. Hence the present appeals. 4. Shri V. Alagappan, Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order. 6. After hearing both sides, and on perusal of records, I find that the show cause notice itself is vague in as much there is no evidence on record that they have not submitted the list of relevant documents at the time of filing of return for the first time, in terms of Rule 5(2) of S.T. Rules, 1994. Based on a mere premise that appellant appeared not to have filed the retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
