Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. on Dot Couriers and Cargo Limited

Commissioner of Central Excise vs On Dot Couriers and Cargo Limited

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 23, 2004
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34261

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

On Dot Couriers and Cargo Limited

Legal References

Reported In
(2006)STR90

Excerpt

1. when the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants, in spite of notice. heard the learned jdr.2. the revenue filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal whereby the commissioner (appeals) reduced the penalty imposed under section 76 of the finance act, 1994. the contention of the revenue is that the commissioner has no power to reduce the penalty prescribed under section 76 of the finance act, 1994.3. i find that section 80 of the finance act, 1994 provides notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 76, section 77, section 78 or section 79, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.in view of these, the commissioner (appeals) finds that there was only delay in respect of two months, therefore, he reduced the penalty.4. further, the tribunal in the case of escorts jcb limited v. cce, new delhi - held that in case the maximum penalty provided under the provisions of law, the discretion is with the authority to impose lesser amount of penalty. therefore, i find no infirmity in the impugned order. the appeals are dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. When the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants, in spite of notice. Heard the learned JDR.2. The Revenue filed these appeals against the Order-in-Appeal whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The contention of the Revenue is that the Commissioner has no power to reduce the penalty prescribed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.

3. I find that Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 provides notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 76, Section 77, Section 78 or Section 79, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.

In view of these, the Commissioner (Appeals) finds that there was only delay in respect of two months, therefore, he reduced the penalty.

4. Further, the Tribunal in the case of Escorts JCB limited v. CCE, New Delhi - held that in case the maximum penalty provided under the provisions of law, the discretion is with the authority to impose lesser amount of penalty. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial