TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that: - The impugned order has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX Versus M/s FIRST FLIGHT COURIERS LTD [2013 (11) TMI 1360 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], which is in accordance with propriety and legality and where it was held that Appellate Authority has not applied its mind with reference to the findings and reason recorded in imposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity. 2. None appeared for the respondent. We have heard Learned Authorised Representative and perused the records including the memorandum of cross-objection filed. In the memorandum, respondent, in addition to disputing the contention of Revenue for imposition of penalties under both section 76 and the section 78 of Finance Act, 1994, has also sought the tagging of its appeal no. ST/358/2011- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the above circumstances, we limit ourselves to ascertainment of propriety of the first appellate authority in restricting the penalty to section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. We find that the impugned order has specifically cited the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in re M/s First Flight Couriers Ltd . There has been no discussion on the applicability of decision of the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd this contention to be either legal or proper. The impugned order has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble High Court which is in accordance with propriety and legality. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the non-imposition of penalty under section 76 of Finance Act, 1994. 6. Appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Cross-Objection disposed off. (Pronounced in Court on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
