9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty upheld. Regarding denial of cenvat credit - duty paying invoices - denial on the ground that no supporting documents for receipt of duty paid inputs have been submitted by the appellant - Held that: - the credit can be availed only on the basis of valid documents. In the present appeal, there is nothing to controvert the findings on facts as recorded in the impugned order - credit not allowed. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Service Tax Appeals Nos.863/2010 & 2749/2012 - ST/A/53206-53207/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 12-5-2017 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Ms. Rinki Arora, Advocate for the appellants Mr.Ranjan Khanna, DR for the respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The amendment carried out in Section 78 w.e.f. 10.05.2008 is only clarificatory and penalties under both sections cannot be imposed even prior to such amendment. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rawal Trading Company 2016 (42) STR 210 (Gujarat) and also Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court decision in First Flight Courier 2011 (22) STR 622 (P H). The said decisions have been followed by the Tribunal in subsequent cases. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the show cause notice issued on 13.02.2009 cannot invoke the penalty both under Sections 76 and 78 as the law applicable at the time of issue of show cause notice should be considered. Reliance was placed on the decision of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it clear that they are only contesting the imposition of penalty under Section 76 and also denial of cenvat credit by the Original Authority. In the second appeal, the appellants only prayed for setting aside the penalty imposed by the Original Order dated 16.03.2012. As such, we are not examining the service tax liability or connected issues in these appeals. 7. Regarding imposition of penalty under both Sections 76 and 78, we note that the provisions of Section 78 have been amended w.e.f. 10.05.2008. The last proviso in the said section, inserted on that day stipulates that if the penalty is payable under this Section, the provisions of Section 76 shall not apply. Admittedly, this is statutory amendment and applicable prospectively. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amendment is only clarificatory in nature. We may mention that Punjab and Haryana High Court in its decision dated 12th 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 Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to the amendment, we note that the liability for any violation of law is governed by the law applicable at the time of such violation. The amendments carried out in the statutory provisions of Finance Act, 1994 are prospective in nature unless otherwise stated. We note that the reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the People Choice 2014 (36) STR 10 (Kar.) is not appropriate. The Hon ble High Court upheld the Tribunal s order. The Tribunal examined the demand raised after amendment of Section 73(1)(a). 9. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CCE 2015 (326) ELT 209 (SC) has held that - From this it is clear that when Section 6 speaks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
