https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211120 Where the original authority lawfully exercised discretion under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and declined to impose penalty on acceptance of cause shown, the Commissioner could not in suo motu revision substitute his own view and levy penalty under sections 76 and 78 absent jurisdictional error. The revisional power was held not to extend to interfering with a discretionary, reasoned non-penalty order merely to impose a different outcome. The challenge therefore failed, and the assessee succeeded. en-us Thu, 22 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211120 Where the original authority lawfully exercised discretion under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and declined to impose penalty on acceptance of cause shown, the Commissioner could not in suo motu revision substitute his own view and levy penalty under sections 76 and 78 absent jurisdictional error. The revisional power was held not to extend to interfering with a discretionary, reasoned non-penalty order merely to impose a different outcome. The challenge therefore failed, and the assessee succeeded. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 22 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211120