2013 (5) TMI 726 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/s 76 - The original Adjudicating Authority while confirming the demand of service tax and imposing penalty under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, did not impose any penalty under Section 76. - Commissioner appeals imposed the penalty u/s 76 with penalty u/s 78 - held that - In view of the fact that Delhi Benches fall under the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court and as such, are bound by the declaration of the law by the said High Court and also in view of fact that, that the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision is later in point of time, and that both the decision stand discussed by the decision of CCE, Haldia vs. Mittal Technopack P. Ltd. (2013 (5) TMI 701 - CESTAT, KOLKATA). Penalty u/s 76 set aside - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of imposing penalties under different sections of the Finance Act, 1994 - Application of double jeopardy principle - Precedence of conflicting High Court decisions.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Penalty Imposition: The case involved a dispute regarding the imposition of penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of service tax and imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78 but did not impose a penalty under Section 76. Subsequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) imposed a penalty under Section 76, leading to the appeal by the assessee against this decision.

2. Precedent of High Court Decisions: The Tribunal referred to conflicting decisions by different High Courts. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE vs. First Flight Courier Ltd. held that prior to a specific date, imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 amounts to double jeopardy. On the other hand, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Krishna Poduval opined that separate penalties can be imposed for different offenses arising from the same transaction.

3. Application of Precedent: The Tribunal considered the jurisdictional aspect, noting that the Delhi Benches fall under the jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Given the later timing of the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision and the binding nature of the High Court's declaration of law, the Tribunal followed the precedent set by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) imposing a penalty under Section 76 was set aside, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed with consequential relief.

4. Conclusion: The Tribunal, by respectfully following the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, resolved the issue of penalty imposition under different sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The conflicting High Court decisions were reconciled based on jurisdictional considerations, leading to the disposal of the stay petition and appeal in favor of the appellant.