TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings were initiated against the appellants under a show cause notice dated 8.10.2004 alleging inter alia that the appellant had provided the taxable 'Security Agency' service during 1999-2003 but had failed, to take registration under that category, to file returns and to periodically remit the service tax due. The show cause notice proposed levy of service tax of Rs. 7,77,854/-, apart from interest and penalties under Section 75A, 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and appropriation of Rs. 2,69,306/- already remitted towards tax. 3. After a due process, the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Raipur passed the adjudication order confirming a tax demand of Rs. 3,18,522/- and penalty of Rs. 24,250/- each under Sections 76 and 78....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12.12.2000 in respect of Security Agency Services, and started paying service tax thereon from April 2001. From the details of invoices submitted by the Noticee, I find that they had received an amount of Rs. 4,15,173/- during 1999-2000 and Rs. 4,82,092/- during 2000-2001 against security agency services provided by them on which, service tax amounting to Rs. 20,759/- and Rs. 24,105/- respectively were payable by them, which they paid on 6.10.2004 and 26.2.2006 when investigation was initiated against them. After registration on 12.12.2000 , they filed ST-3 return for the period October 2000 to March 2001. In this return, they have declared the value of taxable period charged during this period as nil. This return was received on 25.4.2001....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imary order. This is the clear position mandated by Section 84 of the Act, as it stood during the relevant time. This legal/statutory position is fairly conceded by the ld. A.R. for Revenue. 7. It requires to be noticed that it has been the experiences of this Tribunal that a disturbing large number of cases adjudication orders, whether passed by the primary Authority or an Appellate Commissioner, no uniform practice has evolved with regard to recording the date of the order. An order is passed but sometimes the date needs to be ascertained from the date appended after the signature of the officer passing the order. Sometimes (as in this case), a plurality of dates is endorsed on the covering page of the order. Occasionally, no date appear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.C.E. vs. First Flight Courier Ltd. - 2011 (22) STR 622 (P & H); of this Tribunal in Surya Consultants vs. C.C.E., Jaipur I - 2013 (32) STR 217 (Tri-Del.) and of the Karnataka High Court in C.S.T., Bangalore vs. Motor World - 2012 (27) STR 225 (Kar.) to contend that simultaneous penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act cannot be imposed, even prior to introduction of a proviso to Section 78 with effect from 10.5.2008 (whereby it is legislatively enjoined that if the penalty is payable under this Section, the provisions of Section 76 shall not apply).These decisions or the proposition of law delineated therein would not however assist the appellant. Ld. A.R. for Revenue would cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n adjudicating authority with regard the quantum of penalty be imposed under these provisions. The provisions enjoin a linear obligation that a penalty which is not less than (the specified amount amended from time to time for every day during which failure to remit the tax due continues or at the specified percentage rate of such tax), so however that the total amount of penalty shall not exceed the amount of service tax payable. Section 78 clearly enjoins that the penalty shall be equal to the amount of service tax which is not levied , or paid or short -levied or short - paid. In the light of the clear legislative prescriptions in the Sections 76 and 78, the liability of the appellant is seen to have been correctly determined by the impu....