9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 78 is appropriate. There is no dispute about the fact that the services provided by the appellants were Works Contract Service and as such switch over to the said services for payment of service tax which was in the knowledge of the Revenue also cannot be held to be with any mala fide. The only lapse on the part of the appellant was that they did not get their registration certificate amended - However, appellant has already deposited duty plus 25% penalty on balance duty which was deposited after the order, the balance amount of penalty imposed upon them under Section 78 is set aside. Penalty u/s 76 of FA - HELD THAT:- It is well settled law that both the penalties i.e. under Section 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultane ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e balance amount of ₹ 4,55,713/- alongwith interest was deposited by them within a period of one month of passing of the Order-in-Original, adjudicating the show cause notice. They also deposited 25% of the balance amount, as penalty. 4. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that inasmuch as the entire demand of duty confirmed against them was to the tune of ₹ 12,25,533/- and the appellant had only deposited a part amount before the issuance of the show cause notice, imposition of penalty of 100% upon the appellant was justified. Accordingly, he held that option of payment of 25% penalty by the Original Adjudicating Authority would relate to the entire penalty imposed to the extent of ₹ 12,25,533/- and not to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant has already deposited duty plus 25% penalty on balance duty which was deposited after the order, I set aside the balance amount of penalty imposed upon them under Section 78. 6. As regards the imposition of penalties under Section 78 it is well settled law that both the penalties i.e. under Section 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously. Reference can be made to Tribunal decision in the case of Artefact Projects Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur 2018 (363) E.L.T. 1041 (Tri.-Mumbai). By following the same, I set aside the imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Act. 7. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. (Order pronounced in the open court on 16/05/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
