2018 (2) TMI 834

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rep. by none for the appellant. Rep. by Ms. Neha Garg, AR for the respondent. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee/appellant, who filed appeal against the impugned order and also a cross objection against the appeal by Revenue. We note that these appeals have been listed on numerous occasions and on none of the occasions, the appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2,83,722/-. He also imposed penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty under Section 76. While upholding the tax liability of the appellant/assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant/assessee did not deposit 25% of the penalty amount under Section 78 within 30 days and as suc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../assessee. There is no provision to extend such time limit. This has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Service Vs. Tops Security Ltd. vide judgement dated 5.12.2015 in CEAC 42/2015. 6. Regarding the appeal by Revenue for non-imposition of penalty under Section 76, when penalty has already been imposed under Section 78, we hold that pr....