2018 (7) TMI 100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the affairs of the appellant and came to the conclusion that they have failed to pay Service Tax for the period 01.10.2004 to 31.03.2010. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 20.04.2010 was issued to the respondent. The adjudicating authority, on conclusion of adjudication proceedings passed the impugned order in which he ordered for payment of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 54,27,859/- alongwith interest. He also imposed penalties under Sections 69, 70 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. But, he refrained from imposition of penalty under Section 76. Revenue has filed the present appeal on the limited ground that the adjudicating authority should have imposed penalty under Section 76 also in addition to the other penalties. 3. When the case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 operate in two different fields. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced below:- 15. By their very nature, Sections 76 and 78 of the Act operate in two different fields. In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval - (2005) 199 CTR 58 = 2006 (1) S.T.R. 185 (Ker.) the Kerala High Court has categorically held that instances of imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Act are distinct and separate under two provisions and even if the offences are committed in the course of same transactions or arise out of the same Act, penalty would be imposable both under Section 76 and 78 of the Act. We are in agreement with the aforesaid rule. 16. No doubt, Sect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....within its jurisdiction not to levy the penalty under Section 76 of the Act having regard to the fact that penalty equal to service tax had already been imposed under Section 78 of the Act. This thinking was also in consonance with the amendment now incorporated though the said amendment may not have been applicable at the relevant time. Moreover, the amount involved is 51,026/- only." The Court, thus, chose not to interfere with the aforesaid discretion of the Tribunal. 17. However, in the instant case, the appellate authority, including the Tribunal, has chosen to impose the penalty under both the Sections. Since the penalty under both the Sections is imposable as rightly held by Kerala High Court in Krishna Poduval (supra), the ....