9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant both under Section 76 and 78 for prior period of 10-5-2008. Aggrieved by the said order appellant are before this Tribunal. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that they are not contesting for the demand of duty. However, they are contesting the imposition of penalty under Section 76 as well as 78 for the period of demand prior to 10-5-2008. The appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court in case of CCD, Chandigarh Vs. City Motors[2010(19)S.T.R. 486 (P&H). 3. Ld. A.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied on the impugned order. 4. We have considered the rivals' submissions. 5. The appellant providing works contract service. Their defence against non payment of service tax on the GTA service receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndustrial Security & Protection Services (supra) wherein a Single Member Bench has referred the matter to a Larger Bench in view of the conflicting decisions by the Hon'ble Kerala and Karnataka High courts. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of ACCE v. Krishna Poduval reported in 2006 (1) S.T.R. 185 (Ker.) held as foliows :- "11. The penalty imposable under Section 76 is for failure to pay Service Tax by the person liable to pay the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 and the rules made thereunder, whereas Section 78 relates to penalty for suppression of the value of taxable service. Of course, these two offences may arise in the course of the same transaction, or from the same act of the person concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder both Sections 76 and 78 for the period prior to 10-5-2008. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has merely observed that - "it is now well settled that the liability cannot be imposed both under Sections 76 and 78" [2012 (26) S. T.R. 304 (Kar,)]. This is only an obiter dictum and does not lay down any ratio. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the imposition of penalties both under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act on the appellant for the period prior to 10-5-2008. Similarly it is seen that the decision of Hon'ble P&H High Court in case of City cable (supra) relies on the decision of Hon'ble P&H High Court in case Commissioner Vs. Pannu Property Dealers [2011(24) STR 73(P&H). In the said case in par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
