https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155279 A penalty under Rule 27 was imposed for late filing of the annual financial information statement, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set it aside after considering the facts and cautioned the assessee instead. The Department challenged that discretionary order on the ground that some penalty should have been sustained. CESTAT held that, given the nature of the issue and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s exercise of discretion on the facts, the departmental appeal ought not to have been filed. The appeal was rejected, the order setting aside the penalty was sustained, and the cross-objection was disposed of. en-us Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:33:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155279 A penalty under Rule 27 was imposed for late filing of the annual financial information statement, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set it aside after considering the facts and cautioned the assessee instead. The Department challenged that discretionary order on the ground that some penalty should have been sustained. CESTAT held that, given the nature of the issue and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s exercise of discretion on the facts, the departmental appeal ought not to have been filed. The appeal was rejected, the order setting aside the penalty was sustained, and the cross-objection was disposed of. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155279