2017 (11) TMI 614

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 15.04.2008 was issued proposing demand of service tax for the period 01.01.2005 to 31.01.2006. It has been alleged that the appellant had not paid service tax on GTA service. The adjudicating authority by order dated 30.06.2009 confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 8,68,636/- and Education Cess of Rs. 17,366/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of tax under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Revenue filed Revision of the Adjudication Order before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur for imposition of penalty under Section 76. By the impugned order dated 09.10.2009, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Act, 1994. Hence, the appellant filed this appeal. 3. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....als). Hence, there is no force in the submission of the ld. Advocate. 4. The next contention of the ld.Counsel is that the exercise of the Revision proceeding is undue interference when the Adjudicating Authority had given finding not to impose penalty under Section 76. I find that the Commr. Of Central Excise in the impugned order had given detailed finding in respect of imposition of penalty under Section 76 as under: "3.2. I find that the said assessee are already found by the original adjudicating authority to have evaded Service Tax amounting to Rs. 8,86,002.00, during the period from 01.01.2005 to 31.01.2006. In the impugned order-in-Original, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osable under Sec.76 as there is no scope for imposing double penalty i.e. both under Sec.76 and Sec.78. In their defence, the said assessee has cited several quasi-judicial and judicial decisions. However, the original Adjudicating Authority did not adduce any reason for non-imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. I also find that it is only with effect from 10.05.2008, that Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was amended to say that if penalty is payable under Section 78 ibid, the provisions of Section 76 ibid shall not apply. However, the demand in the instant case is for the period from 01.01.2005 to 3`1.01.2006 and penalty therefore was rightly payable for non-payment of Service Tax due for payment during the sa....