2009 (7) TMI 482

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Khan Baig, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The relevant fact of the case, in brief, are that during the course of audit of M/s. Spice Comimmication (P) Ltd. it has been noticed that they have appointed dealers/franchisees throughout the State of Punjab for providing Mobile Telephone services and they have entered into contract with each service provider. The appellants is one of the dealers/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1994. The Commissioner, Central Excise revised the adjudication order under Section 84 of the Act. By the impugned order, the Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs.500/- under Section 75A, Rs.100/- per day subject to maximum of Rs.7,848/- under Section 78 and penalty of Rs.7,848/- under Section 78 of the Act for suppressing the value of taxable service from the department. Hence, the appellant filed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssed value of tax from the department and, therefore, imposition of penalty under Section 78 is not justified. The findings of the Commissioner is that the original exercised power without assigning any reason. I am unable to accept the findings of the Commissioner. On perusal of the adjudication order, I find that after considering the facts of the case the original authority exercised the power ....