9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h. Venkateswara Rao, learned Advocate, appeared for the appellant Shri Raja Dass, Authorized Representative (SDR), for the Revenue [Order per Shri T.K. Jayaraman Member (T)] - This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 07/2005 (T) ST dated 05.10.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) Guntur. 2. Shri Ch. Venkateswara Rao, learned Advocate, appeared on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the Government was not accepted. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the lower authority. The learned Advocate submitted that the appellants took out registration in September 2002. They had already paid service tax of Rs 17,175/- along with interest of Rs 1,157/- for the period from 16.08.2002 to 31.03.2003. Similarly, for the period from 01.04.2003 to 30.11.2003 also they ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven such a judicious finding, the Deputy Commissioner should not have imposed any penalty under Section 76 or should have a nominal penalty which he has not done. Having given the said finding then under Section 80 of the Finance Act, the appellants should have been given protection instead of imposing penalty under Section 76. Though the Commissioner (Appeals) has mentioned all the four decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the imposition of penalties is not warranted. The lower authority could have exercised his powers under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 to modify or set aside the penalties. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the penalties imposed. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
