TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 770
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s. Rahul Trade Link, Sarviaya Stree, Gundala Road are authorized distributors of M/s. Tata Teleservices Ltd. since December 2004 and have been earning commission. The obligation of payment of service tax however, was not discharged by them. Therefore a show cause notice was issued demanding duty of servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e it was lawful to do so. The appellants also challenged the imposition of penalty @ 2% of the service tax amount per month under Section 76 as without jurisdiction, because the appellant could not have been penalized under different sections for the same alleged offence. The penalties on the appellant under different sections for the same offence is also a punishment more than once for the same a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction or arises out of the same act, the penalty is imposable for ingredients of both the offences. There can be a situation where even without suppressing value of taxable service, the person liable to pay service tax fails to pay. Therefore, penalty can certainly be imposed on erring persons under both the above Sections, especially since the ingredients of the two offences are distinct and sepa....