TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which could have been the basis for acquiring jurisdiction to Commissioner to impose the penalty - There is no evidence produced before the revisional authority or any other authority to prove fraud, collusion, misrepresentation etc. so as to attract the application of Section 78 - leniency shown by the original authority in terms of Section 80 did not suffer from any illegality and could not hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned CESTAT is justified in setting-aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 enhanced by the Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 84 of the Act particularly when suppression of the facts with intent to evade service tax stands proved against the Respondents?" The order-in-original was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 15.6.2005 (A-1) and penalty of Rs. 1,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 31.3.2008, passed by the Tribunal in the case of sister concern of the assessee-respondent, namely M/s Darmania Telecom, Gurdaspur, the revenue has also preferred an appeal, bearing S.T.A. No. 6 of 2008. The aforementioned appeal came up for consideration before us on 12.2.2009 and the same has been dismissed by observing as under:- " Having heard learned counsel for the revenue we ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny penalty under Section 78. There was no basis for the Revisional Authority-cum-Commissioner to acquire the jurisdiction to impose penalty. There is no evidence produced before the revisional authority or any other authority to prove fraud, collusion, misrepresentation etc. so as to attract the application of Section 78 of the Act. In our view, the Tribunal has rightly restored the order of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
