9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of INDIAN NATIONAL SHIPOWNERS' ASSOCIATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2009 (3) TMI 29 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . By relying upon the said decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court, the learned Commissioner has also given the benefit and confirmed the demand only for the period from 18.04.2006 to 31.12.2006 which the appellant has already paid alongwith the interest. It has been held by the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of M/S CITY CABLE, BATHINDA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA [ 2016 (2) TMI 961 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] that simultaneous penalty under Sections 76 and 78 is not warranted. Conclusion - There was no intention to evade the service tax, therefore, imposition of penalties is not warra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant has prayed that the penalties proceedings be dropped. After following the due process, the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 20.01.2010 confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.4,44,724/- alongwith interest and also imposed penalties of Rs.4,36,361/-, Rs.6000/- and Rs.4,36,361/- under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 respectively. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order, has set aside the demand of service tax for the period prior to 18.04.2006 and has upheld the demand of service tax and interest for the period 18.04.2006 to 31.12.2006. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also reduced the penalties imposed under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalties under Sections 76 and 78 was not permissible in law in view of various judgments including the decision of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Ludhiana vs. Pannu Property Dealer 2011 (24) STR 173 (P H). 4.5 In support of his submission that no penalty is warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Counsel has relied on the following case-laws: Matrix Telecom Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-II 2013 (32) STR 423 (Tri. Ahmd.) City Cable Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana - 2017 (48) STR 222 (P H) Ankit Exim Pvt Ltd Versus Union of India 2023 (386) ELT 692 (S.C.) 4.6 The learned Counsel also submits that vide CBEC s Instruction No. 276/8/2009-CX8A dated 26.09. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng with Sections 76 and 78 of the Act, this Court in STA No. 48 of 2010 (Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate v. M/s. First Flight Courier Limited) decided on 28-1-2011 [2011 (22) S.T.R. 622 (P H)] STA No. 50 of 2010 (Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana v. M/s. Akash Cable, 1411 Urban Estate, Phase-II, Dugri, Ludhiana) decided on 16-2-2011 and STA No. 13 of 2010 (Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhaina) decided on 12-7-2010 [2011(24) S.T.R. 173 (P H)], held that the Act does not envisage imposing of simultaneous penalties. .. 8. In view of our analysis and by relying upon the ratio of the decision of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of City Cable (supra), we are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
