2019 (2) TMI 1566

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urugan, AC (AR) for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the respondents are engaged in providing advertising services by displaying the advertisement of their clients on bus back panels, bus shelters etc., after obtaining permission from MTC, TNSTC and Southern Railway. They obtained service tax registration under the category of Advertising Agenc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce Act, 1994 along with penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under section 77 of the Act. The department has filed the present appeal against such order aggrieved for the failure to impose penalty under section 78, even though the same was proposed in the show cause notice. 2. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan reiterated the grounds of appeal. He adverted to para 2.1 of the show cause notice and argued that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act ibid. 3. None appeared for the respondent though notices were issued for hearing. 4. The matter is taken up for disposal after hearing the ld. AR and on perusal of records. 5. The grievance of the department is that the adjudicating authority failed to impose penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act. It is seen that the respondent has discharged the entire service tax liability alo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions for dropping the penalty under section 78. We have given our anxious consideration to the argument put forward by the ld. AR. After the amendment with effect from 10.5.2008, last proviso to section 78 states that if penalty is payable under such section, the provisions of section 76 shall not apply. Therefore, the penalties under sections 76 and 78 are mutually exclusive. When the adjudicatin....