TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, we notice that, as has been conceded by the ld. AR, the adjudicating authority has imposed only one penalty under Sections 78 and 76 together. Thus in effect, there is only one penalty which is equal to the adjudicated service tax liability which therefore is to be treated to have been imposed under Section 78 ibid. As regards the contention of the appellants that the benefit of reduced (25% of the mandatory equal penalty) under Section 78 ibid should be extended to them as the same has not been extended by the lower authorities. Following decision of Ratnamani Metal Tubes Ltd. [2013 (12) TMI 1397 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - penalty under Section 78 will be reduced to 25% of the adjudicated service tax liability provided the adjudicated ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court and that in spite of that the adjudication authority below went ahead and adjudicated the case. 3. We find that the appellant did not make any submission before the original adjudicating authority or before the first appellate authority and merely asserted that the case should not be adjudicated. Even before the Tribunal they have made no pleadings on merit. The ld. Advocate during hearing only stated that penalty under Section 76 should not be imposed when penalty under Section 78 has been imposed and that they should be given option to pay reduced (25%) of the mandatory equal penalty in terms of proviso to Section 78 ibid as the lower authorities had not done so. 4. The ld. AR concedes that in the adjudication order only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... educed (25% of the mandatory equal penalty) under Section 78 ibid should be extended to them as the same has not been extended by the lower authorities, we find that the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ratnamani Metal Tubes Ltd. 2013-TIOL-HC-AHM-CH, the Hon ble Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court held as under : at no stage, either in the Order-in-Original or in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee respondent has been given the benefit of payment of reduced penalty Court has followed a consistent view that the assessee is required to be given the option by the adjudicating authority where he is asked to pay a duty demand with interest and 25% of penalty within 30 days from the date of adjudication of the order and in such case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
