https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129024 The appeal was allowed, and the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was reinstated. The case was remanded back to the original authority for a fresh decision considering the submissions of the respondents, emphasizing the need for a proper opportunity for the appellants to be heard. The presiding judge found that the demand of tax for the extended period was confirmed due to the suppression of facts, making the penalty under Section 78 applicable. The matter required further examination based on the facts presented, leading to the decision for a reconsideration of the case. en-us Tue, 26 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:15:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129024 The appeal was allowed, and the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was reinstated. The case was remanded back to the original authority for a fresh decision considering the submissions of the respondents, emphasizing the need for a proper opportunity for the appellants to be heard. The presiding judge found that the demand of tax for the extended period was confirmed due to the suppression of facts, making the penalty under Section 78 applicable. The matter required further examination based on the facts presented, leading to the decision for a reconsideration of the case. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129024