Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 452 - CESTAT NEW DELHIDemand of service tax - Imposition of penalty u/s 76, 77 & 78 - cable operator service - Held that:- In view of the provisions of Section 67, Explanation (2) cum-tax benefit is required extended to the appellant and as a consequence the amount of demand would be reduced to ₹ 3,69,019/- As regards setting aside penalty under Section 76 is concerned, as per the judgements of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Pannu Property Dealers [2010 (7) TMI 255 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and CCE Vs. First Flight Courier Ltd. [2011 (1) TMI 52 - High Court of Punjab and Haryana] it has in effect been held that once penalty under Section 78 has been imposed penalty under Section 76 may not be justified and need not be imposed. Accordingly, the contention of the appellant with regard to setting aside the penalty under Section 76 is sustainable. It is also seen that in the case of Ratnamani Metals Vs. CCE - [2013 (12) TMI 1397 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], Gujarat High Court held that if the option of reduced (25% of the demand) mandatory penalty has not been extended expressly at the lower levels, the CESTAT can award such an option. - demand is reduced to ₹ 3,69,019/-, penalty under Section 76 is set aside, penalty under Section 75A and 77 are upheld and penalty under Section 78 is reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|