TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finance Act, appellant cannot be held responsible for interpreting the same in such that it could be beneficial to them. no penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is imposable as also extended period of limitation for the purpose of confirming demand is also not invokable. appeal filed by the appellant is allowed - ST/698/2010 - A/1944/2011-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 1-7-2011 - Dr. P. Babu, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri D.K. Trivedi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Rajendra Nagar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. This appeal has been filed against the order-in-appeal No. 182/2010 (Ahd.-III)KCF/Commr(A)/Ahd., dated 18-11-2010. 2. Heard both the sides. I find that Commissioner (Appeals) while narrating the facts has obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alties under Sections 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 4. Being aggrieved with the above order of Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants have preferred this appeal. The appellants have contested the impugned order so far as it is limited to invocation of extended period for the purpose of confirmation of demand of service tax as also imposition of penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The main contention of the appellants is that, since the issue pertains to interpretation of relevant clauses of Finance Act, 1994, neither could penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 be imposed nor the extended period of limitation, for the purpose of confirming demand be invoked. The appellants have cited various j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exed copies of various judgments. 6. Learned advocate Shri. D.K. Trivedi appearing for the appellants has submitted following judgments in support of his contention that penalty under both the Sections i.e. Section 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously :- (a) C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Krishna Automobile - 2011 (23) S.T.R. 57 (TD) (b) C.C.E., Ludhiana v. Pannu Property Dealers - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 687 (Tri. Delhi) (c) C.C.E., Chandigarh v. City Motors - 2010 (19) S.T.R. 486 (P H) (d) The Financers v. C.C.E., Jaipur - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 7 (TD) (e) C.C.E., Madurai v. Ayya Communications - 2011 (22) S.T.R. 12 (TC) On perusal of these judgments, I find that it is well settled law that though there was a specific amen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise v. Krishna Poduval [2006 (1) S.T.R. 185 (Ker)] wherein it has been held that incidence of imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 are distinct and separate under two sections. The said decision has been rendered in the facts of the said case where the party therein did not take up the original orders imposing penalties on the appellant before the appellate authority within the maximum period prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act. Thus, I find that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no penalty under Section 76 and 78 can be imposed simultaneously. 9. As regards invocation of extended period of limitation is concerned, it can be seen from the order in original itself and con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
