2011 (2) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Vice-President   This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.285/2010 dt. 27.2.2010 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act from Rs.1,49,758/- to Rs.50,000/-.   2. Heard both sides.   3. The respondent is a manufacturer of Oleoresin which they also export. For this purpose....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d reduced the penalty under Section 76 to Rs.50,000/-.   4.1. Ld. DR, reiterating the grounds of appeal, submits that Commissioner (Appeals) having held that there is liability to pay penalty under Section 76 cannot impose any amount lower than the minimum prescribed and, therefore, he seeks setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the penalty and seeks restoration of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alty. Inasmuch as the amount of penalty sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) was only Rs.50,000/-, they have not chosen to file appeal. However, for the purpose of contesting the prayer in the departmental appeal, they are canvassing the above point. He seeks that penalty should not be enhanced.   6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. Th....