9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty i.e. either under Section 76 or under Section 78. Since in the case in hand penalty under Section 78 has already been imposed, the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 76 of the Finance Act 1994 upheld by the First Appellate Authority is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Since the amount of service tax liability stands collected but not deposited with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of penalty under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by recording a finding that the appellant herein has not discharged the service tax liability to Government Treasury despite recovering the same from their client. The adjudicating authority as well as the First Appellate Authority have imposed penalties under the provisions of Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant with penalties under various Sections. It is his further submission that tax liability could not be discharged earlier due to the reason that Karnataka State Financial Corporation had defaulted in making the payment in time. 5. Learned DR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 6. After considering the submissions made by both sides, I find that the dispute involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78, I find that the pleadings made by the appellant before the Tribunal and also the grounds of appeal do not factually contest findings recorded by the adjudicating authority and First Appellate Authority as to the culpability of non-discharge of the service tax liability despite having been collected by them from their client. In my view, since the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
