2008 (6) TMI 183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . ORDER 1. The respondent is engaged in the business of Share Broker service. It has been alleged that there was a delay in filing of return and payment of tax for the period from April, 1999 to March, 2004. The respondents deposited the tax of Rs. 2,32,308 on different dates. A show-cause notice was issued proposing demand of interest of Rs. 35,448 and penalties. The respondent deposited the in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the revenue. The mandatory penalty should be imposed. 3. The learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent, reiterates the findings of the Commissioner of Central Excise. He submits that the respondents deposited the tax before issue of show-cause notice. Therefore, no penalty is warranted. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Adjudicating Authority imposed penalty wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of any mala fide intention. The revenue has not challenged this finding of the Commissioner. I also notice that taking into consideration of account of tax and interest, the Adjudicating Authority rightly imposed penalty. So, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.
Case laws, Decisions, Judg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X