9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Ms. Neha Garg, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : B. Ravichandran, Member (T)]. - The dispute in the present appeal is relating to liability of the appellant for penalty under Section 77(1)(c) of Finance Act, 1994. The said provision deals with failure to furnish information called for by an officer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 or rules made th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-2-2009 issued by the jurisdictional officer. It is submitted that the appellant vide their letter dated 29-5-2009 had submitted the requisite information to the Range Officer. This fact has been admitted in the original order itself. Ld. Counsel submitted that they had not received the two letters said to have been sent, calling for details. Despatch of letters by speed post is not an approved m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived two communications said to have been sent by the jurisdictional officer calling for details. We have specifically ascertained from the ld. AR about the existence of evidence for service of the said letters on the appellant. No such evidence is available on record. The penalty in the present case was imposed on the ground that the appellant failed to provide details called for. In the absenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
