2017 (6) TMI 473

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rt in the case of CCE, Ludhiana vs. Pannu Property Dealers [2010 (7) TMI 255 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], wherein it has been held that simultaneous penalties cannot be imposed u/s 76 and 78 respectively - penalty u/s 76 set aside. Considering the fact that appellant had paid the entire amount of service tax along with interest before issuance of SCN and no option has been given in the imp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of show cause notice, the appellant is liable to penalty only under Section 78 of the Act, in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Ludhiana vs. Pannu Property Dealers - 2011 (24) STR 173 (P H), wherein it has been held that simultaneous penalties cannot be imposed under Sections 76 and 78 respectively. Therefore, penalty imposed under Section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6 (41) STR 612 (Del.). 4. Considering the fact that the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana is having the jurisdiction over the Chandigarh bench, the penalty is reduced to 25% of the service tax, which shall be payable by the appellant within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which, the appellant is liable to pay 100% of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X