9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereafter from 10.05.2008 to 31.03.2009, penalty u/s 76 is not sustainable. The appellant has already deposited 25% of the penalty u/s 78 ibid. The remaining 75% of penalty shall stand waived - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of assessee. - ST/123-124/2012-ST[DB] - ST/A/52297-52298/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 6-1-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Ms. Pravesh Khandelwal (Advocate) for the Appellant Mr. Sanjay Jain, (DR) for the Respondent Per S.K. Mohanty: These appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Adjudication) Service Tax, New Delhi, whereby service tax demand of ₹ 1,12,54,068/- along wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that penalty under both section 76 78 can be imposed prior to the amendment of Section 78, upto 10.05.2008. The Ld. DR has relied on the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bajaj Travels Ltd. vs CST 2012 (25) STR 417 (Del.) and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India vs CST Mum-I 2015 (37) STR 785 (Tri-Mum.) to state that prior to 10.05.2008 penalty can be imposed under both Section 76 and 78 simultaneously. 4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the side and perused the records. 5. The period involved in this case is from 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2009. Section 78 ibid was amended w.e.f. 10.05.2008 wherein the 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarificatory in nature. We may mention that Punjab and Haryana High Court in its decision dated 12 th July, 2010 in STA 13/2010, entitled Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhiana [2011 (24) S.T.R. 173 (P H)] has taken the view that even if the scope of two sections of the Act may be different, the fact that penalty has been levied under Section 78 could be taken into account for levying or not levying penalty under Section 76 of the Act. However, that was a case where the appellate authority had exercised its discretion not to levy the penalty under Section 76 of the Act, when the larger penalty had already been imposed under Section 78 of the Act. In this scenario, the appeal of the Revenue against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
