9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y hold that the imposition of penalty under Section 76 and Section 78 separately is not mutually exclusive prior to 10.05.2008, Hon ble High Court has certainly held that the Appellate Authority was within its right to hold that the penalty is mutually exclusive and in the spirit of the amendment. While the amount involved in the above case was Rs.51,026/-, the amount involved in the instant case is about half that amount. Therefore, in deference to the jurisdictional High Court s order, the penalty under Section 76 and 78 can be seen to be mutually exclusive even before the amendment. In the facts and circumstances of the case and looking into the fast changes that were coming in the Service Tax law during the relevant period, it can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CTOs investigated. It appeared to the Department that the CTOs are providing Business Auxiliary Services to M/s SIFY and as such, they are liable to pay service tax. Two show-cause notices dated 04.12.2007 were issued to the appellants, demanding a service tax of Rs. 7,694/- and Rs.95,376/-, invoking extended period; the same was confirmed by the OIO dated 31.08.2009. On an appeal filed by the appellants, Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the demand confirmed to Rs.57,407/- along with penalty under Sections 76 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Hence, this appeal. 2. None for the appellant. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of OIO and relies on the case of Citi Cable Opera- 2020 (41) GSTL 506 (Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Rs.51026/- only. 5. Though, the Hon ble High Court did not categorically hold that the imposition of penalty under Section 76 and Section 78 separately is not mutually exclusive prior to 10.05.2008, Hon ble High Court has certainly held that the Appellate Authority was within its right to hold that the penalty is mutually exclusive and in the spirit of the amendment. While the amount involved in the above case was Rs.51,026/-, the amount involved in the instant case is about half that amount. Therefore, in deference to the jurisdictional High Court s order, we find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
