2004 (9) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Petitions that out of an order dated 27th of June 2003 made in ST Nos. 4/2002, 6/2002, 10/2002 and 15/2002, the questions of law set out herein-below would arise for consideration :- 1.         Whether the reviewing authority's interpretation of provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 in Order-in-Review No. 8/2002, dated 29-1-2002/1-2-2002 that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent Standing Counsel, for the Petitioner, Shri N. Anand, Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 and Shri G.K.V. Murthy, Counsel for Respondent No. 2. in these Petitions. 4. No doubt it is the contention of Shri Veerendra Sharma that the Tribunal has mis-directed itself by proceeding on the basis that minimum of Rs. 100/- per day is not prescribed under Sec. 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, and therefo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tanding Sec. 76 of the Act, which prescribes for the levy of minimum penalty of Rs. 100/- per day, the Authority has the discretion under Sec. 80 of the Act to waive the penalty. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, we do not find in the order Annexure-B, the Commissioner proceeded to levy the penalty referred to above on an erroneous impression that he is not required ....