9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Shri Krishan Garg, Advocate ORDER Per Mr. R.K. Singh : Revenue has filed this Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.1/BPL/2009, dated 12.01.2009 on the ground that Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty under Section 76 while upholding the penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Revenue has contended that in this case service tax demand of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e distinctively separate under the provisions of Sections 76 and 78 of the Act and also the judgement in the case of Bajaj Travels Ltd. Vs.CST [2012 (25) STR 417 (Del.)], where Delhi High Court also held that prior to 16.05.2008, the two Sections, i.e., 76 and 78 were in operation in two different fields and penalties were imposable under both in the course of same transaction. 2. We have conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 (24) STR 173 (P&H)] that even if technically, scope of sections 76 and 78 of the Act may be different, as submitted on behalf of the revenue, the fact that penalty has been levied under section 78 could be taken into account for levying or not levying penalty under section 76 of the Act. In such situation, even if reasoning given by the appellate authority that if penalty under section 78 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not to levy penalty under Section 76 having regard to the fact that penalty under Section 78 has been imposed. In the wake of the said judgements of Punjab & Haryana High Court we are of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from such a grave illegality/impropriety as to warrant our interference. Therefore, we dismiss Revenue s appeal. 3. Since Revenue s Appeal is dismissed, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
