75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

July 2011

(2011) 22 STR 351 (Tri.-Chennai) — T. V. Ramesh v. CCEx., Madurai.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Penalty — Enhancement of mandatory penalty in revision order which was passed after passing of order-in-appeal against the original adjudication order — Revenue stating that Commissioner in revision proceedings not informed of appeal proceedings — Commissioner in revisionary proceedings not justified in enhancing such penalty — Enhancement quashed.

Facts:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority, as the same related to imposition of penalty u/s. 78. Meanwhile, the Commissioner issued a notice enhancing the imposition of penalty. The appellant had not brought to the notice of the Commissioner that the same order of the original authority was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Commissioner had issued the order after passing of the said order by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Held:
The Commissioner was not made aware of the appeal proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the original order. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty u/s. 76 and upheld the penalty u/s. 78. In the light of these facts, the Commissioner was held as not justified enhancing the penalty and the appeal was allowed by quashing enhanced penalty.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

(2011) 22 STR 342 (Tri.-Bang.) — MTR Foods Ltd. v. CCEx., Bangalore.

(2011) 22 STR 361 (Tri.-Bang.) — CCEx. & Cus. (Appeals), Tirupati v. Kores (India) Ltd.