2014 (7) TMI 500

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ra Sharma, Jt. CDR For the Respondent: Ms. Neetu Singh, C.A. JUDGEMENT Per: Justice G. Raghuram: Revenue has preferred this appeal against the common order, dated 23.09.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh, in order-in-appeal Nos. 494-495/CE/CHD/2008. 2. The respondent - M/s Punjab State Federation Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Chandigarh had prefer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant-Revenue and ld. Consultant Ms. Neetu Singh for the respondent assessee. We notice that there is a conflict of opinion amongst decisions of different High Courts, on the issue whether penalties under Sections 76 and 78 could simultaneously be imposed, prior to the amendment to Section 78, by the Finance Act, 2008, whereby Section 78 was amended to provide that in case where penalty i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....td. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax - 2012 (25) STR 417 (Delhi) the issue before the Delhi High Court was clearly whether in view of the amendment under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 2008, penalty under Sections 76 and 78 could simultaneously be imposed, for periods prior to the amendment. The Delhi High Court agreed the decision of the Kerala High Court in Krishna Poduval and held that simultane....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ners order was rejected by this Tribunal. Revenue carried the matter in further appeal to the High Court. The High Court concluded that Section 78 is more comprehensive and provided for a higher quantum of penalty and even if technically the scope of Sections 76 and 78 are different, penalty under Section 76 may not be justified if penalty is already imposed under Section 78. For this conclusion ....