2019 (2) TMI 958

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....S. Marhas, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate JUDGMENT PER AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. I.A. No.1 of 2018 is an application for condonation of delay of 54 days. For the reasons indicated in the said I.A., delay is condoned. 2. Heard counsel for the Appellant and counsel for the Respondent/Revenue. 3. The appeal arises against the order dated 11.1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with applicable interest along with 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 78, within 30 days of the receipt of adjudication order. Admittedly, in the present case, the time limit of 30 days has not been followed by the appellant/assessee. There is 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 S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e upholding the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding non-availability of the reduced penalty under Section 78 to the appellant/assessee, we set aside the impugned order with reference to penalty under Section 76. The said penalty is rightly imposable for the period prior to 10.05.2008." 5. The submission of the counsel for the Appellant that there was no fraud or intention not to pay....