2008 (11) TMI 198

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....N. Srivastava for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents had been providing service under the category of 'Rent-a-Cab' under the Finance Act, 1994. It has been alleged that the respondents failed to discharge the service tax liability and suppressed the fact with intent to evade payment of tax. A show-cause notice dated 23-5-2007 was issue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons 76 and 78 of the Act are distinct and separate under the two provisions and even if offences are committed in the course of the same prosecution or arise out of the same Act, penalty can imposable for both the offences under both the sections separately, He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Asstt. CCE v. Krishna Poduval [2006] 3 STT 96/150 Taxman 634 (Ker....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r section 78 of the Act The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty under section 76 on two counts. Firstly, after filing reply to show-cause notice, the corrigendum to show-cause notice was issued on 21-8-2007 proposing to impose penalty under section 76 which is not sustainable in view of the Tribunal decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE 2006(196) ELT 62/3 STT 391 (Mum.-C....