2014 (10) TMI 387

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... R Chandrasekharan: The appeal and stay petitions are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. PD/ST-I/514/14 dated 28/03/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Mumbai - IV. 2. Vide the impugned order, the lower appellate authority has upheld the confirmation of penalty of Rs. 1,01,500/- imposed on the appellant, M/s. Rughani Brothers for delayed filing of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The said notice was adjudicated by the jurisdictional Superintendent vide order dated 09/02/2012 wherein he imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-filing of returns. Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued vide notice dated 13/02/2012 proposing to demand a sum of Rs. 1,01,500/- being the lat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant under Rule 7C was only Rs. 12,000/- for six returns and whereas the late fee charged vide the impugned order is Rs. 1,01,500/-. The appellant has already paid Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77 and therefore stay be granted against the Late fee demand. 6. The learned Superintendent (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and submits that the maximum cap ....