ORDER
T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J)
1. Heard both sides.
2. At the stage of hearing stay application, it is felt desirable to dispose of the appeal itself; since the point involved in both of them is one in the same.
3. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nashik under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 had revised the order of the Assistant Commissioner in respect of penalty amount enhancing the same from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 2,38,486/-under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
4. Earlier the Assistant Commissioner, by his Order-in-Original dated 29-3-2004 levied Service Tax to the tune of Rs. 2,38,486/- and ordered to pay sum with appropriate rate of interest along with penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 76 and further penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act. Accordingly, the appellants have paid all these amounts. After passing the Order-in-Original by the Assistant Commissioner, whereas the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik in exercise of revisional Power under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 enhanced the penalty amount as stated supra in the impugned order, which is assailed before the Tribunal by the assessee.
5. This Tribunal had to consider the similar issue in its order No. A/330 to 332/IU/SMC/WZB/06 dated 6-2-2006 2006 (3) S.T.R. 509 and some other cases. In all these cases, the revision order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nashik was set aside holding that there was no sufficient reason for enhancing the penalty amount. Following the same principle and further as there appear no mala fide intention or delayed tactics on the part of the appellants, 1 find this is not a case where the penalty is to be enhanced. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Stay application is disposed of accordingly.
(Pronounced in the Court)