ANDHRA BANK Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are seeking adjournment again. We find that they have already been given adjournments earlier on 27 -6 -2008,19 -8 -2008, 20 -10 -2008 and 23 -3 -2009. Under the law, no appellant can be given more than three adjournments whereas the appellants have already taken four adjournments. No one is also present today on behalf of the appellants despite notice taken by them. As such, the request for further adjournment is not reasonable and the same is rejected.

(2.) THE learned Jt. CDR states that the appellant's bank has obtained a 'COD clearance to pursue the appeal against the penalty imposed on them and not in respect of the tax. As such, the demand of tax made against the appellants along with interest is sustained. As regards the penalty imposed, we find that the appellants have been imposed penalty both under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. We take note of the fact that subsequently, amendment has been made under the law making these penalties mutually exclusive. Keeping in view the amendment, we sustain the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act and set aside the penalty under Section 76 of the Act. While sustaining the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, we take note of the findings of the original authority which is as follows: