TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Order No. 22051 / 2017 - Dated:- 15-9-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Navin Kushalappa, AR For the Appellant Shri K Parameswaran, Adv, For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has modified the impugned order and partially allowed the appeal of the Respondent. 2. The Assessee has also filed cross objections against the Order-in-Appeal questioning the imposition of late fee of ₹ 26,000/- imposed on him. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are as follows: The Respondents are registered under the category of Clearing Forwarding Agents from 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,000/- by the Commissioner (A). Aggrieved by the said order, the Assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) allowed the appeal of the Assessee partially and dropped the penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 on the basis of certain decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the Commissioner (A). 4. Heard both the parties and perused material on record. 5. The learned AR for the Revenue submitted that the impugned order dropping the penalty by taking recourse to section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the Assessee was well acquainted with the provisions of law and cannot take the excuse of ignorance. He further submitted that the Assessee has cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... * Suvidha Engineers India Ltd. Vs. CCE 2013 (32) STR 735 (Tri.-Del) as upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad reported as CCE Vs. Suvidha Engineers India Ltd 2017 (50) STR 268 * Hind Rectifiers Ltd. Vs. CCE 2017 (351) ELT 300 (Tri.-Mum) * CC Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. 2002 (144) ELT 125 (Tri.-Chen) * State of Tamil Nadu Vs. TVL Jeevanlal Ltd. -1997 (91) ELT 268 (SC) 6. The learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that he has filed the cross objections with regard to the imposition of late fee penalty on the Assessee under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rule read with section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. He further submitted that the Assessee has paid the late fee of ₹ 8,000/- for filing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
