https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757084 CESTAT Ahmedabad dismissed Revenue's appeal challenging Commissioner's decision to not impose penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal held that simultaneous penalties under Sections 76 and 78 cannot be imposed, following Gujarat HC precedents. Since the show cause notice was recurring in nature, Nizam Sugar Factory SC judgment applied, requiring fraud or willful misstatement for Section 78 penalty. As demand was raised under Section 73(1) without invoking proviso, different penalty standards couldn't apply. Commissioner's refusal to impose Section 78 penalty was upheld as correct and legal. en-us Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Aug 2024 10:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757084 CESTAT Ahmedabad dismissed Revenue's appeal challenging Commissioner's decision to not impose penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal held that simultaneous penalties under Sections 76 and 78 cannot be imposed, following Gujarat HC precedents. Since the show cause notice was recurring in nature, Nizam Sugar Factory SC judgment applied, requiring fraud or willful misstatement for Section 78 penalty. As demand was raised under Section 73(1) without invoking proviso, different penalty standards couldn't apply. Commissioner's refusal to impose Section 78 penalty was upheld as correct and legal. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757084