9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 500 - AT - Service TaxPenalty u/s 76 & 78 - Simultaneous penalty - Commissioner set aside penalty u/s 76 and sustained penalty 78 - whether imposition of simultaneous penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act could be imposed, prior to amendment of Section 78 - Held that - appeal arises out of an adjudication order dated 25.02.2008 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chandigarh, a quasi-judicial Authority functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In the circumstances and in view of the decision of a Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise vs. Kashmir Conductor s - 1997 (7) TMI 186 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI , the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court within whose jurisdiction the adjudicating authority exercises adjudicatory functions has to be followed and that constitutes the operative law. Consequently, in so far as the respondent -assessee is concerned, simultaneous penalties under Sections 76 and 78 cannot be imposed and the judgment of the Appellate Commissioner which is in conformity with the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s First Flight Courier Limited (2011 (1) TMI 52 - High Court of Punjab and Haryana), is unassailable. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 simultaneously. 2. Conflict of opinion among different High Courts regarding the simultaneous imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 before the amendment to Section 78 in 2008. 3. Interpretation of the relationship between penalties under Sections 76 and 78 in the context of service tax demands and penalties. Analysis: Issue 1: Imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 simultaneously The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming a service tax demand and penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Appellate Commissioner concluded that penalties under Sections 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously as they are mutually exclusive. While confirming the penalty under Section 78, the order of the primary Authority imposing penalty under Section 76 was set aside. The Tribunal noted the conflict of opinion among different High Courts on this issue. Issue 2: Conflict of opinion among High Courts The Tribunal highlighted the conflicting decisions of different High Courts on whether penalties under Sections 76 and 78 could be imposed simultaneously before the amendment to Section 78 in 2008. The High Court of Kerala in a previous case ruled that penalties under these sections serve different purposes and can be imposed for distinct offenses arising in the same transaction. On the other hand, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held a contrary view, emphasizing the comprehensiveness of Section 78 and the higher quantum of penalty it provides. Issue 3: Interpretation of the relationship between penalties under Sections 76 and 78 The Tribunal referenced the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a similar case where it was held that simultaneous penalties under Sections 76 and 78 cannot be imposed. The Tribunal noted that in cases where the jurisdictional High Court has established a precedent, it must be followed. Therefore, in the present case, following the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, simultaneous penalties under Sections 76 and 78 cannot be imposed. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as lacking merit based on this interpretation. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the legal position regarding the imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, emphasizing the need to follow the precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court in such matters.
|
