2019 (2) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... esha, Member (Judicial) Shri. S. Sivaramakrishnan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. K. P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The only ground urged by the assessee/appellant in this case is the sustainability of the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing Ld. Advocate Shri. S. Sivaramakrishnan appeared on behalf of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Per contra, Ld. AR supported the findings of the lower authorities and urged that the penalty be sustained. 5. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the materials placed on record and have also gone through the Orders of this Bench relied on by the Ld. Advocate. 6.1 On a perusal of the Order of this Bench in the case of M/s. Dusters Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra), I find that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and, hence, has overriding effect on Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act ibid. ..." 6.2 It is not the case of the Revenue that the tax was not paid/short paid or paid after the demand was raised against the appellant herein and hence, the findings of this Bench in the case of M/s. Dusters Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra) is squarely applicable. Further, this Bench in the case of M/s. Sri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X