2016 (6) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on to the overseas agents but did not pay service tax under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) under reverse charge mechanism. Penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were also imposed. 2. The appellant has fairly conceded that the issue is covered against it in its own case vide CESTAT Order No. ST/A/53824/2015-CU[DB], dated 11.09.2015, but pleaded that the penalty under Section 76 ibid should be waived in view of the fact that penalty under Section 78 ibid has been imposed and option to pay reduced mandatory penalty under Section 78 ibid should be given (as it had not been given by lower authorities) as was done in the above-referred CESTAT order. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative pleaded that during the rele....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct, 1994 should not be imposed. We find that Punjab & Haryana High Court in several cases (viz CCE Vs. First Flight Couriers Ltd. - 2011-TIOL-67-HC-P7H-ST, CCE-Chandigar-I Vs. M/s Cool Tech Corporation - 2011-TIOL-23-HC-P&H-ST, CCE Vs Pannu Property Dealers Ludhiana 2010-2010-874-HC-P&H-ST) has held that even if at the relevant time the penalties under Section 76 & 78 were not mutually exclusive, one penalty under Section 78 has been imposed, penalty under Section 76 ibid may not be justified. We also have no difficulty in agreeing with the appellants that maximum penalty under Section 77 was only Rs. 1000/-." In the light of the said judicial pronouncement, we are inclined to accept the contention of the appellant with regard to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rat Vs. Rajeshree Dyg. & Ptg. Mills (P) Ltd. [2014 (305) ELT 442 (Guj) passed by Gujarat high Court after the judgement in the case of Ratnamani Metals & Tubes (supra). Gujarat High Court itself changed its view and in effect held a view similar to that held by Delhi high Court in the case of Pr. CST-II Vs. Top Security Ltd. (supra) Review petition against the said judgement was dismissed by the Supreme Court as reported in ELT quoted below :- " Penalty - Tribunal not justify in extending benefit of reduced penalty of 25% when duty, interest and penalty not deposited either before raising of demand or within 30 day of adjudication order. The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Ju....