TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on the appellant. 2.1 The brief facts are that:- (i) M/s. Babulal Parihar (M/s. BP in short) were registered with Central Excise for providing rent a cab service. Later other services namely, manpower recruitment agency service, transport of goods by road service and works contract service were also added to the services registered. (ii) Based on the intelligence, Department started investigation and found that appellant was providing services under the category of commercial or industrial construction service and supply of tangible goods service, and same were not included in their registered services. (iii) The period involved in the present case is from April, 2007 to March, 2011. For this period the Department issued show cause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ultaneous penalties under section 76 and section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are illegal. However, for the evasion of service tax prior to 10.5.2008 penalties under both sections 78 and 76 can be imposed. The Tribunal in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra) has observed as under: "6.11 The appellant has also raised a contention as to whether penalties can be imposed both under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, simultaneously. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Industrial Security & Protection Services (supra) wherein a Single Member Bench has referred the matter to a Larger Bench in view of the conflicting decisions by the Hon'ble Kerala and Karnataka High courts. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to sit on judgment over a decision rendered by a High Court. Therefore, the reference made by a Single Member to a Larger Bench of the Tribunal is of no consequence for imposition of penalties unless and until the decision of the Hon'ble High Court is overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further we note that in the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, no reasons have been given as to why penalty is not imposable under both Sections 76 and 78 for the period prior to 10-5-2008. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has merely observed that - "it is now well settled that the liability cannot be imposed both under Sections 76 and 78" [2012 (26) S.T.R. 304 (Kar.)]. This is only an obi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....retrospective operation in the absence of any specific stipulation to this effect. Going by the nature of the amendment, it also cannot be said that this amendment is only clarificatory in nature. We may mention that Punjab and Haryana High Court in its decision dated 12th July, 2010 in STA 13/2010, entitled Commissioner of central Excise Vs. M/s Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhiana has taken the view that even if the scope of two sections of the Act may be different, the fact that penalty has been levied under Section 78 could be taken into account for levying or not levying penalty under Section 76 of the Act. However, that was a case where the appellate authority had exercised its discretion not to levy the penalty under Section 76 of the Ac....