2008 (7) TMI 295

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Chartered Accountant, for the Appellant. Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This appeal arises from Order-in-Review No. 93/2007 dated 16-11-2007 by which the Commissioner after due consideration of entire matter found that there was no jurisdiction for the original authority to waive penalty in respect of Business Auxiliary Service and therefor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....power under Section 80 and found reasonable cause to justify waiver of penalty and therefore, the order of review is not correct and imposing of penalty is not as per law. 2. The learned Chartered Accountant submitted that this Bench has gone into this issue in batch of 20 appeals in the case of M/s. Majestic Mobikes Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. CCE vide Final Order Nos. 652-672/2008 dated 30-5-2008 [....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under 'after sales service' and granted waiver of pre-deposit. 3. The learned SDR submitted that the Commissioner has clearly found sufficient cause for imposing penalty and the same should not be discharged. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions. We find that this Bench has already dealt with an identical situation in batch appeals in the case of M/s. Majestic Mobikes Pvt. Ltd. & ....