2010 (7) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL   Mr. H.P.S Ghuman, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the respondent Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against deletion of penalty by the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi levied under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....penalty under sections 76 and 77 could not be imposed in addition to penalty under Section 78. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the revenue against the said order and upheld the penalty of Rs.1,000/- under Section 77 of the Act. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that concept of penalty under sections 76 and 77 is different f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct may be different, as submitted on behalf of the revenue, the fact that penalty has been levied under section 78 could be taken into account for levying or not levying penalty under section 76 of the Act. In such situation, even if reasoning given by the appellate authority that if penalty under section 78 of the Act was imposed, penalty under section 76 of the Act could never be imposed may not....