2008 (12) TMI 338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... revenue has filed the appeal against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he has reduced the penalty under section 76 from Rs. 93,180 to Rs. 10,000. 2. Ld. SDR on behalf of the revenue submitted that section 76 is unambiguous and does not provide any liberty to the officers deciding the case to reduce the penalty and it has to be either Rs. 100 per day or Rs. 200 per day as the c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....TT 363 (Chennai - CESTAT). 4. Identity Advertising Associates v. CCE [Final Order No. 169/2007, dated 25-1-2007]. 5. CCE v. Punjab National Bank [2008] 16 STT 243 (New Delhi - CESTAT). 6. CCE&C v. D.R. Gade [2008] 16 STT 249 (Bom.). 3. In view of the several decisions cited by the ld. Chartered Accountant on behalf of the respondents, which clearly cover the issue under consideration u....