2010 (10) TMI 438

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tirupati. Vide the impugned order, in exercise of powers under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority to the extent it refrained from imposing penalty and has imposed the penalty of an amount of Rs. 13,69,226/-, equivalent to the duty amount, under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, besides penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77 of the said Act. 3. The challenge to the impugned order is essentially on the ground that the lower revisional authority while exercising powers under Section 80 of the said Act, ignoring the fact that the adjudicating authority had refrained from imposing penalty on account of failure on the part of the department to substantiate t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....regard. 5. Perusal of Section 80 of the said Act, undoubtedly discloses that it will have overriding effect on the provisions of Sections 76, 77 & 78, in the sense that imposition of penalty under any of those provisions is not mechanical exercise by the concerned authority. On the contrary, before proceeding to impose the penalty under any of those provisions of law, the authority is expected to ascertain from the records as to whether the assessee has established that there was reasonable cause for the failure or default committed by the assessee. Undoubtedly, such a provision not to be found either in the Central Excise Act, 1944 or in the Customs Act, 1962. Being so, the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of UOI v. Dharamend....