2011 (1) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndent JUDGEMENT Adarsh Kumar Geol: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 (in short "the Act") against order dated 25.5.2010 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether the judgment and order passed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eal, while the demand of service tax was upheld, penalty under Section 78 was reduced to 25% on the ground that the amount was deposited within one month on receipt of order. Penalty under Section 76 was set aside on the ground that penalty under Section 76 as well as 78 could not have been imposed simultaneously. The appeal of the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has bee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....more comprehensive and provides for higher amount. Even if technically, the scope of sections 76 and 78 is different, penalty under Section 76 may not be justified if penalty had already been imposed under Section 78. The matter was considered by this Court in STA No.13 of 2010 (Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Pannu Property Dealers,Ludhiana) decided on 12.7.2010, wherein it was observed:- ....