9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... setting aside penalty under Section 76 is concerned, as per the judgements of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Pannu Property Dealers [2010 (7) TMI 255 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and CCE Vs. First Flight Courier Ltd. [2011 (1) TMI 52 - High Court of Punjab and Haryana] it has in effect been held that once penalty under Section 78 has been imposed penalty under Section 76 ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hnical), JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Ravi Chopra, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M.R. Sharma, D.R. ORDER Per R.K. Singh : Appeal has been filed against order-in-appeal dated 6.2.2009 which upheld demand of service tax of ₹ 4,06,660/- (out of the demand of ₹ 12,81,621/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) The option of reduced (25%) penalty under Section 78 was never extended and therefore the same should also be extended. 3. The ld. D.R. supported the impugned order. 4. We have considered the contentions of the appellant. In view of the provisions of Section 67, Explanation (2) cum-tax benefit is required extended to the appellant and as a consequence the amount of demand would be reduce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CESTAT can award such an option. 4. In the light of the foregoing, we allow the appeal partially to the extent that the demand is reduced to ₹ 3,69,019/-, penalty under Section 76 is set aside, penalty under Section 75A and 77 are upheld and penalty under Section 78 is reduced to ₹ 3,69,019/-,The penalty under Section 78 will be 25% of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 3,69,019/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
