Penalties under ss.76 and 78 can be imposed simultaneously; distinct ingredients allow separate punishment; s.80 permits mitigation.

HC held that penalties under sections 76 and 78 (pre-2008 amendment to s.78) may be imposed simultaneously: s.76 penalizes failure to pay service tax per s.68 and rules, while s.78 penalizes suppression of taxable service value. Although both offences can arise from the same transaction, their ingredients are distinct, permitting separate penalties for each. The court noted the appropriate authority could, under s.80, mitigate or refrain from imposing penalty if reasonable cause for failure is proved.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Payment of service-tax, interest, and penalty under the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Validity of the imposition of penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain appeals dismissed on the ground of limitation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Payment of Service-Tax, Interest, and Penalty:
The matter pertains to the payment of service-tax, interest, and penalty under the Finance Act, 1994. The revenue issued show-cause notices to the respondents for non-payment of service-tax amounting to Rs. 27,425 and Rs. 33,450, respectively, along with applicable interest under section 75 and penalties under sections 76 and 78. The respondents' appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to being filed beyond the period prescribed under section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, with no power to condone the delay. Consequently, the respondents filed writ petitions challenging the orders, which led to the present appeals.

2. Validity of the Imposition of Penalties under Sections 76 and 78:
The learned single Judge confirmed the demand for service-tax and interest under section 75, and the penalty under section 78, but directed the withdrawal of the penalty under section 76. The revenue argued that penalties under sections 76 and 78 are for distinct and separate offenses: non-payment of service-tax and suppression of the value of taxable service, respectively. The respondents contended that the offenses arose from the same transaction, constituting only one offense, making the imposition of both penalties unwarranted. The court rejected the respondents' argument, stating that the incidents of imposition of penalties are distinct and separate, and penalties under both sections are imposable even if arising from the same transaction.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226:
The court held that the respondents, having failed to file appeals within the prescribed period under section 85(3), could not revive their appeals through the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that entertaining such contentions would negate the law of limitation. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in CST v. Parson Tools & Plants, emphasizing that statutory periods of limitation must be adhered to and cannot be extended by the courts.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the respondents could not challenge the imposition of penalties on merits due to the limitation prescribed under section 85(3). The judgment of the learned single Judge directing the withdrawal of the penalty under section 76 was set aside. The writ petitions were dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

---