Tribunal Upholds Additional Penalty for Tax Non-PaymentSimultaneous penalties u/s 76 and 78 - in the case of Krishna Poduval reported in [2010 TMI - 75949 - Kerala High Court] wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held that separate penalties under Section 76 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994 can be imposed, appeal of the assessee rejected... ... ... Issues:
1. Imposition of service tax, interest, and penalty for non-payment of service tax during a specific period.
2. Applicability and imposition of separate penalties under Section 76 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Lack of representation by the appellant during the appeal hearings.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in providing cable services, was found to have not paid service tax for the period from October 2002 to December 2004. An amount of Rs.44,473/- as service tax, along with interest and a composite penalty of Rs.44,473/- under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, was confirmed and imposed by the Original Adjudicating Authority after issuing a show cause notice. Subsequently, the Commissioner, noting the requirement for separate penalties under Section 76 & Section 78, issued a show cause notice and imposed an additional penalty of Rs.44,473/- under Section 76 of the Act, in addition to the penalty already imposed. The appellant challenged this imposition of penalty.

2. The appeal hearings on multiple dates did not see any representation from the appellant or requests for adjournment. The appeal memorandum filed by the appellant raised the issue of the imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Act. The Tribunal, considering the appellant's grounds of appeal, noted the decision in the case of Krishna Poduval where it was held that separate penalties under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be imposed. The Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner and rejected the appeal based on the legal precedent and lack of representation by the appellant during the hearings.

3. The judgment highlights the importance of proper representation and adherence to legal procedures during appeal hearings. It also clarifies the authority's power to impose separate penalties under different sections of the Finance Act, 1994, based on legal precedents and interpretations. The case serves as a reminder for taxpayers to comply with tax obligations and actively participate in legal proceedings to present their case effectively. Simultaneous penalties u/s 76 and 78 - in the case of Krishna Poduval reported in [2010 TMI - 75949 - Kerala High Court] wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held that separate penalties under Section 76 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994 can be imposed, appeal of the assessee rejected M/s. Classic Cable Network Versus CCE Vapi
Service Tax
2010 (5) TMI 82 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - [2010] 28 STT 161 (AHD. - CESTAT)
CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - AT
Dated:- 7-5-2010
ST/357/09 - WZB/AHD/2010
Service Tax
CORAM: MR. B.S.V. MURTHY, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Per: B.S.V. Murthy: Appellant is engaged in providing cable services. On the ground that appellant had not paid service tax during the period from October 2002 to December 2004, an amount of Rs.44,473/- being a service tax payable was confirmed with interest and composite penalty of Rs.44,473/- under Section 76 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994 was imposed by the Original Adjudicating Authority after issue of show cause notice. Noting the fact that separate penalties should have been imposed under Section 76 & Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994, the Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 84 of Finance Act, 1994 issued a show cause notice and passed the impugned order wherein he imposed separate penalty of Rs.44,473/- under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 in addition to the penalty already imposed under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Original Adjudicating Authority considering the penalty imposed by the Original Adjudicating Authority as penalty under Section 78. 2. The appeal was listed for hearing on 22.12.09, 29.01.10 & 01.04.10 and no one appeared on behalf of the appellants nor was there any request for adjournment. Today when the matter was called, I again find that there is no request for adjournment nor there is any representation. 3. I have considered the submissions made in the appeal memorandum filed by the appellants. In the appeal memorandum in the grounds of appeal, appellants have stated 'the assessee has erred in imposing penalty of the u/s 76 of the Act.' Reading the ground as Commissioner has erred in imposing penalty under Section 76 of the Act I proceed further. The learned DR relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Krishna Poduval reported in 2006 (1) STR 185 (Ker.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala held that separate penalties under Section 76 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994 can be imposed. Therefore I do not find anything wrong in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. Accordingly appeal is rejected. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court) (B.S.V. Murthy) Member (Technical) jk
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders