9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise 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. - Appeal No. 821 of 2008 - Final Order No. 52161 / 2014 - Dated:- 15-5-2014 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es under Sections 76 and 78 could simultaneously be imposed, prior to the amendment to Section 78, by the Finance Act, 2008, whereby Section 78 was amended to provide that in case where penalty is payable under Section 78, penalty under Section 76 shall not apply. The amendment to Section 78 has come into force w.e.f. 10.05.2008. 4. The issue whether imposition of simultaneous penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act could be imposed, prior to amendment of Section 78 was considered by the High Court of Kerala in Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Krishna Poduval 2006 (1) STR 185 (Kerala), which ruled that the penalty imposable under Section 76 is for a different purpose than penalty imposable under Section 78; though both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied the matter in further appeal to the High Court. The High Court concluded that Section 78 is more comprehensive and provided for a higher quantum of penalty and even if technically the scope of Sections 76 and 78 are different, penalty under Section 76 may not be justified if penalty is already imposed under Section 78. For this conclusion the High Court referred to and followed its earlier judgment in CCE vs. Pannu Property Dealer, Ludhiana, a judgment dated 12.07.2010 in S.T. Appeal No. 13/2010. 7. The present 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
