TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 422
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y One Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Thirteen Only), made in the Show Cause Notices viz issued under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 by invoking the proviso clause thereto, as payable by/recoverable from M/s Oriental Facility. ii) I hereby order to appropriate the amount of Rs. 51,60,810/- paid by M/s Oriental Facility towards the demand confirmed at Sr No (i) above. iii) I order recovery of interest at the appropriate rate(s), on the amount confirmed at (1) above, from the due date(s) under the provisions of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 from M/s Oriental Facility. iv) I order recovery of Interest at the appropriate rate(s) for failure to pay Service Tax of Rs. 86,89,494/- in time as required under Section 68(2) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of show cause notice and interest was also paid subsequently. Accordingly, they did not have malafide intention in non-payment of service in time. He further submits that penalties under Section 76 and 78 could not have been imposed simultaneously as penal provisions of both section are exclusive and for different circumstances. In the present case penalty under Section 78 was imposed then penalty under Section 76 should not have been imposed, as per the Order of the Tribunal in case of The Financers Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur[2007 (8) S.T.R. 7 (Tri. - Del.)] . The same issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Panjab and Haryana High Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissionerate Vs M/s First Flight Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... A.B. Kulgod, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 5. We find that demand of service tax and interest and payment thereof is not under dispute as the same has been admitted by the appellant. The only issue remain to be decided by us is whether penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 is imposable or not. From the facts of the case, we find that appellant did not disclose service tax liability to the department at the relevant time, accordingly they have suppressed the facts. As regard the issue whether simultaneous penalty can be imposed under Section 76 and 78 during the relevant period, the issue has....