9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Devender Singh, Jt CDR PER : R K Singh The appellants are in appeal against imposition of penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The facts in brief are that the appellants are provider of dry cleaning service. A search was conducted on them in January, 2006 which revealed that they did not file any ST-3 return upto September 2005 and did not pay any service tax during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty under Section 76 by referring to Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Once penalty under Section 76 on account of Section 80 of the Act ibid was not imposed, question of imposing penalty under Sections 77 and 78 ibid should not have arisen. Learned DR defended the impugned order stating that the appellants have never claimed that they were not aware of their tax liability, the period involved i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8, penalty under Section 76 was not imposed as it would tantamount to imposing double penalty. The judgments cited in the order-in-original also were in support of that view. Nowhere in the order-in-original or in the order-in-appeal, there is even a whisper to the effect that Section 80 ibid has even been considered for the purpose of not imposing penalty under Section 76. Thus, a mere mention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides were above board, they should/ would have atleast informed the department about it. It was only when the raid was conducted and they were caught, that they admitted their violations. It is pertinent to note that the appellants have not claimed that they were not aware of their liability. Thus the ingredients for invoking the provisions of Section 78 are conspicuously present in this case and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
