2014 (9) TMI 213

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m October 28, 2004. In addition to the above services, the appellant also rendered services of erection, commissioning or installation, cleaning services and manpower recruitment and supply services to their clients but did not get themselves registered with the Department in respect of these services. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding service tax of Rs. 6,41,163 in respect of taxable services rendered during the period April 2004 to March 2008 under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest thereon under section 75 and proposing penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 ibid. The case was adjudicated vide order dated November 30, 2009, wherein a service tax demand of Rs. 1,21,551 was co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to him. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue on the other hand contends that prior to May 10, 2008, penalty could be levied both under section 76 as well as section 78 and there was no bar in imposing penalty under both these sections. Since the period involved in the impugned case is prior to May 10, 2008, the penalties imposed on the appellant are sustainable. He places reliance on the judgment of the honourable High Court of Kerala in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v. V. Krishna Poduval reported in [2006] 3 VST 21 (Ker); [2006] 1 STR 185 (Ker), wherein it was held that incidence of imposition of penalty are distinct and separate under the two provisions, (i.e., sections 76 and 78) and even if offences are com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 separate. . ." A similar view has taken in the case of Bajaj Travels Ltd. [2012] 48 VST 389 (Delhi); [2012] 25 STR 417 (Delhi) by the honourable High Court of Delhi. Therefore, in the instant case the appellant is liable to pay penalty both under section 76 as well as under section 78. The next issue for consideration is whether the appellant is liable to penalty under section 78 only to the extent of 25 per cent of the penalty imposed inasmuch as he has deposited 25 per cent o....