9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound of having any bonafide belief in favor of the appellant. Simultaneous penalty u/s 76 and 78 - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhiana [2010 (7) TMI 255 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], where it was held that penalties under Section 76 and 78 can be imposed simultaneously. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/89262/13 - A/87804/2017/STB - Dated:- 8-6-2017 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. P. V. Sadavarte, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. M.P. Damle, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Raja This appeal has been filed by M/s. Arti Infra Project Pvt Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of works contract service to their client which may or may not be exempted has no relation whatsoever with they are liable for tax with the GTA service. We find that there is no ground of having any bonafide belief in favour of the appellant. The appellant had relied upon the decision of Hon'ble P H High Court in case City Cable Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana[2017(48) S.T.R. 222 (P H). In the said case it was clearly held that penalty under Section 78 was sufficient to cover default of service and therefore to penalty under Section 76 was not imposed in the said decision it has not been held that both cannot imposed simultaneously. 6. Ld. A. R. relied on the decision of Tribunal in case of Board of Control ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 78 operated in two different fields and penalty was imposable under both separately, even if offences were committed in course of the same transaction or arose out of the same act. However, since the law has been amended prospectively w.e.f. 10-5-2008 so as to bar the imposition of penalties simultaneously, only one of the penalties would survive and not both after the amendment. As regards the reference made by a Single Member to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in this regard, we note that the decision on penalties has been rendered by a High Court and this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to sit on judgment over a decision rendered by a High Court. Therefore, the reference made by a Single Member to a Larger Bench of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 of the Act was imposed, penalty under Section 76 of the Act could never be imposed may not be correct, the appellate authority was within its jurisdiction not to levy penalty under Section 76 of the Act having regard to the fact that penalty equal to service tax had already been imposed under Section 78 of the Act. This thinking was also in consonance with the amendment now incorporated though the said amendment may not have been applicable at the relevant time. Moreover, the amount involved is ₹ 51026/- only. It can be seen that Hon'ble High court held that penalties under Section 76 and 78 can be imposed simultaneously but the Hon'ble High Court having regard to the facts that penalty under Section 78 has been imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
