TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. 3. The appellants are engaged in the job work of erection/installation of pipelines and they had undertaken similar work on contract basis from M/s. Jagatjit Industries Ltd., Hamira,Punjab. The same was revealed to the Department pursuant to the visit to the premises of M/s. Jagatjit Industries Ltd. On perusal of the bills raised by the appellants against the said M/s. Jagatjit Industries Ltd., it was revealed that no service tax was collected for the services rendered by the appellants. Consequently, pursuant to the investigation carried out in the matter, notice dated10th October, 2007came to be issued to the appellants. In response, the appellants admitted the fact of rendering of services and raising of bills on M/s. Jagatjit Industries Ltd. as also non-collection of the service tax. It was also admitted that the appellants were not registered with the Service Tax Department as well as that they were basically engaged in the work of erection and installation of the pipelines, involving the work of welding and fittings of the pipes with nuts and bolts. It was assured on behalf of the appellants that steps would be taken to charge the service tax and to pay the same an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e service tax in time or non-registration with the authorities was not intentional and was on account of absence of knowledge about the same. Being so, according to the learned advocate for the appellants, provisions of Section 80 of the said Act are squarely applicable and the benefit under the same should be given to the appellants. 5. The Departmental Representative, on the other hand, drawing attention to the decision of the Kerala High Court in the matter of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v Krishna Poduval, reported in 2006 (1) S.T.R. 185 (Ker.) and of the Tribunal in Bajaj Travels Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, reported in 2009 (16) S.T.R. 183, submitted that, when the penalty imposable under Section 77 is on a count different from the reason for which the penalty can be imposed under Section 78, the High Court has clearly held that the penalty under both the provisions can be imposed simultaneously. 6. The Tribunal in Remac Marketing (P) Ltd.'s case (supra); Price Water House Coopers Dev. Associates Ltd.'s case (supra); and Martial Security & Detective Service (P) Ltd.'s (supra), has, undoubtedly, held that imposition of the penalty under Section 76 and 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalty under Section 76, the same is attracted if a person liable to pay service tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 or the Rules made thereunder, fails to pay such tax. Since in this case the Appellant, during each month of the period of dispute have failed to discharge full service tax liability by due date resulting in huge short payment, the provisions of Section 76 would be attracted. It has been pleaded by the appellant that penalty under Section 76 as well as under Section 78 cannot be imposed when the offence is same. Such plea is untenable in view of Hon'ble Kerala High Court's judgment in case of Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval reported in 2006 (1) S.T.R. 185 (Ker.). It was held in that case that incidents of imposition of penalty under Sections 76 and 78 are distinct and separate under two provisions and even if the offences are committed in the course of the same transaction or arise out of the same act, penalty would be imposable both under Section 76 as well as Section 78. In view of this, the penalty under Section 76 is upheld. However, the same is reduced to Rs. 100 per day in appeal No. ST/440/06. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nable cause for the said failure." In other words, the assessee has to establish reasonable cause for the failure which could otherwise attract penalty under the said provisions of law. The letter dated24th August, 2006merely informs the Department that the appellants were not aware of the statutory provisions. Ignorance of law can never be an excuse. Besides, the provisions of law are in force since 1994. No doubt there were some amendments to Section 78 in the year 2004, but that was not relating to the main substance of the said provision of law which deals with the penalty aspect. Besides, the records nowhere disclose that in the statement dated13th September, 2005of Shri Balwinder Singh, Proprietor of the appellant firm, had disclosed about absence of knowledge of law to him. Obviously, the letter dated24th August, 2006appears to be an afterthought. Even otherwise, as observed above, mere ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. 12. Obviously, the learned advocate for the appellants placed before me an order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of Commissioner, Central Excise v. M/s. City Motors, reported in 2010-TMI-75950 = 2010 (19) S.T.R. 486 (P & H)....