2017 (12) TMI 1443

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 18/07/2014 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-original but dropped the penalty imposed under Section 76. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant had been promoting and marketing the services of various financial institutions against....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the action initiated by the DGCEI. Thus it was concluded that suppression of fact was clearly established and the appellant was liable for penalty under Sections 78, 77 and 76 of Finance Act, 1994 Hence the demand of Rs. 16,61,787/- was confirmed under Section 73(2) of Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 and imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal in the case of Roshan Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut [2009(13) STR 667 (Tri. Del.)] wherein it was held that during the relevant time, it was related to interpretation of question of law and therefore there was no suppression or misstatement and consequently the penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 were dropped. She further submitted that the period involved in the present case is from 01/07....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of show-cause notice, the Department should not have issued the show-cause notice to the appellant. 5. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the Board vide Circular No.87/05/2006ST dt. 06/11/2006 clarified that the commission received by the automobile dealers from banks / non-banking financial companies for introducing the customers se....