9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity - simultaneous penalties under Section 76 and Section 78 cannot be imposed – as per line with the case of K.P. Pouches (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India - 2008 - TMI - 30328 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI appellant given an opportunity to pay 25% of the tax demanded as penalty within 30 days of receipt of this order. If such payment is not made within the prescribed time limit, amount equal to the full tax amount confirmed will be payable - partly allowed. - ST/589 OF 2011-SM - 56 OF 2012-SM (BR) - Dated:- 10-1-2012 - MATHEW JOHN, J. Alok Kothari for the Appellant. Ms. R. Jagdave for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The Appellants were engaged in the business of providing commercial training or coaching which is taxable under the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for giving an opportunity for the appellant to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) to present their case for waiver of penalty. When the case was considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) for a second time then also the appellant did not appear for hearing, though he had given five opportunities to the appellants to appear before him and explain their case. Thereafter, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the original order and this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is now appealed against before the Tribunal. 2. The Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are a small coaching centre operating at a remote place namely Sikar and that they were not very well versed with the service tax laws and procedure. Further no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation order and therefore they should be given a chance to pay 25% of the penalty following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of K.P. Pouches (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India 2008 (228) ELT 31 and he is willing to pay such penalties within 30 days of receipt of the order and close the matter. 5. The ld. A.R. points out the appellants had taken service tax registration in 2003 itself. So the argument that they were not aware of the liability to collect and pay tax is not correct. 6. The ld. A.R. appearing for Revenue submits that it is perfectly legal to impose penalty under both Sections 76 and 78 as was decided in the following cases :- (1) Asstt. CCE v. Krishna Poduval [2006] 3 STT 96 (Ker.) (2) M.P. Bho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty under Section 76. 10. In the matter of concession to pay 25% of tax amount as penalty, note that the appellants had paid tax and interest before adjudication itself. Since the appellant was a small firm operating in a remote place it would have been appropriate for the adjudicating officer to point out the provision that he can pay penalty in 30 days from the date of the order and close the matter. This was not done. So, I follow the order of the Delhi High Court in K.P. Pouches (P.) Ltd. ( supra ) and given an opportunity to the appellants to pay 25% of the tax demanded as penalty within 30 days of receipt of this order. If such payment is not made within the prescribed time limit, amount equal to the full tax amount confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
