2018 (8) TMI 628

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t also proposed to impose penalties on them under Sections 76 & 78. The original authority vide the impugned Order-in- Original confirmed the demand of Rs. 30,95,926/- and appropriated the amounts already paid by the appellant and demanded the remaining amount to be paid along with interest. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant approached the CESTAT, Bangalore who remanded the matter back to the original authority. In the denovo adjudication order No.8/2008 dated 26.11.2008, the Learned Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 78,398/- (+) Cess of Rs. 692/-. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under section 78 and penalty of Rs. 1,47,500/- under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1944. The appellant filed this appeal seeking to set aside....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....draws our attention to the order of the Tribunal in the case of BCCI [2015 (37) STR 785 (Tri.-Mumbai)] in which simultaneous penalty under sections 76 and 78 was held to be imposable for the period prior to 10.05.2008. With effect from 10.05.2008 the law has been amended prospectively imposing bar on imposition of penalties simultaneously under sections 76 & 78. While passing the above order, the Hon'ble Tribunal Mumbai held that the remark of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of World View Vision [2012 (26) STR 304 (Kar.)] that, "It is now well settled that the liability cannot be imposed both under section 76 and 78, is only an obiter dictum and does not lay down any ratio". This order of the BCCI was appealed before the Hon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 76 and 78 and therefore the impugned Order-in-Original does not require any intervention and the same may be upheld and the appeal may be rejected. 5. We have considered the arguments on both sides. The only issue under consideration is the penalties imposed by the Learned Commissioner in the Order-in-Original. Firstly, it needs to be considered whether penalties can be imposed simultaneously under section 76 and 78. There have been different views by different High Courts in this regard. However, the order of the CESTAT-Mumbai in the case of BCCI, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, puts the matter to rest. It is now a settled law that for the period prior to 10.05.2008 simultaneous penalties can be imposed under section 76 and 78 in....