9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order dt. 09/09/2011 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in providing Manpower Recruitment and Supply service which is a taxable service under Section 65 (105)(k) of the Act. The assessee has not discharged the service tax liability during the period 01/02/2066 to31/08/2006. Therefore, a show-cause notice dt. 20/08/2007 was issued to the assessee demanding service tax of ₹ 26,68,038/- being service tax on taxable services provided by them during the period 01/02/2006 to 31/08/2006 under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act, interest under Section 75 and penalty under Section 76, 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under Section 76 77 of the Act also has to be imposed. 5. I have gone through the impugned order. I find that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has given valid reasons for not imposing penalty under Sections 76 77 by relying upon the decision of the Punjab Haryana High Court as well as the decision of the Tribunal. It is relevant to reproduce para 4.3 and 4.4 from the impugned order wherein the Commissioner(Appeals) has given legal reasoning, which are as under:- 4.3. As regards departments contention that penalties under Section 76 should also have been imposed, I am disinclined to agree with the same. The decision of the High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of CCE Vs. First Flight Couriers Ltd. [2011(922) STR 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of taxable service, such person shall pay by way of penalty in addition to Service tax and interest thereon, a sum which shall not be less than, but shall not exceed twice the amount of service tax sought to be evaded by reason of suppression of concealment of the value of taxable service or furnishing of inaccurate value of such taxable service. Cases in which penalties are imposed under Section 78 cannot fall in respect of the same Service tax evaded for a double penalty under Section 76 also, these two provisions are mutually exclusive and the cases where guilty mind does not exist will fall under Section 76 while those where such mens rea is required, will fall under Section 78. Therefore, there is no scope for imposing double penalty, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
