2008 (3) TMI 113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Order Per Justice S. N. Jha President]-1. The assessee has come in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 28.2.2005 enhancing the penalty from Rs.5000/- to  Rs.21,153/- in exercise of the revisional power under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994.  Section 84 of the Act provides that the Commissioner of Central Excise may call for the record of a proceeding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the amount of penalty to Rs.1,500/- under Section 76.  The penalty imposed under Section 77 of the Act was waived.  The appellant approached this Tribunal in Appeal Nos.ST/149,24,142 & 154/2005. A Bench of this Tribunal by order Nos.289-292/2006-ST dated 30.8.2006 reported in 2006 (4) STR 527 (Tri.-Del.) held that the service provided by the appellant did not fall under the category of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d not be imposed on the appellant, and therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner revising the amount of penalty must be set aside on this ground alone. 4. We find force in the submission of counsel.  In our opinion, the appeal involves many issues but having regard to the limited submission of the appellant it is not necessary to go into other issues.  We are satisfied that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X