2010 (3) TMI 816

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Arvind Kamath, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : K.L. Manjunath, J.]. - The revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals on 21-1-2006 which has been confirmed by the CESTAT, Bangalore in Final Order No. 2084/2006 on 19-12-2006 [2007 (6) S.T.R. 264 (Tri.-Bang.)] regarding the following substantial....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gust 2001 to October 2002 and considering the said period, the Revenue cannot levy penalty at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day by relying upon the provisions of S. 76 as it is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. The Tribunal as well as the Commissioner have found that the amended provision has no application for the period August 2001 to October 2002 as S.76 empowering the Revenue to le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nces, he requests the court to dismiss the appeal holding that the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the assessee is not applicable. 7. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that in ETA Engineering Ltd. case, CESTAT, Northern Bench, New Delhi did not consider the effective date of the amended provision. The said question had also not been given to the Revenu....