9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Stay Order No. S/543/WZB/Ahd/2009-CII dt. 27.3.2009 certified on 8.4.2009 in Application No. ST/S/1521/2008 and Appeal No. ST/170/2008) Shri Somnath Dixit, Adv. for Appellant Shri Sameer Chitkara, SDR for Respondent Per Archana Wadhwa: After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty imposed upon Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, I proceed to decide the appeal itself, with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act paid the duty of Rs. 4,00,082/- along with interest. The appellants are not contesting the above tax so deposited by them. 4. Challenge in the present appeal is only to penalty of identical amount imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act. Learned advocate Shri Dixit appearing for the appellant submits that there was a genuine belief on part of the appellant that they, being a canteen and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into play. I also find force in the appellants' submission that he was not a caterer in the ordinary sense of the term, as is understood by the common people. He was entertaining a genuine belief that running of a canteen in a factory would not be covered by the expression 'outdoor caterer'. I also find force in the appellants submission that the payment of tax by the appellant was available as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
