Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CCE., Bhopal Versus M/s. Hemkunt Petroleum Ltd.

2015 (4) TMI 780 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Levy of simultaneous penalty u/s 76 & 78 - Packing service - Held that:- With effect from 16.05.2008, penalties under Sections 76 and 78 ibid were made mutually exclusive in-as-much-as if the penalty under Section 78 was imposed, the penalty under Section 76 was made unimposable. This amendment with effect from 16.05.2008 in a way reflected the refinement of penal provisions. Indeed it has been held by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE Vs. M/s. Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhiana [20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed may not be correct, the appellate authority was within its jurisdiction not to levy penalty under section 76 of the Act having regard to the fact that penalty equal to service tax had already been imposed under section 78 of the Act. This thinking was also in consonance with the amendment now incorporated though the said amendment may not have been applicable at the relevant time. Further in the case of CCE Vs. First Flight Courier [2011 (1) TMI 52 - High Court of Punjab and Haryana] Punjab & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2015 - Hon ble Justice G. Raghuram, President And Hon ble Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical),JJ. For the Appellants : Shri BB Sharma, DR 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case of BCCI Vs. CST, Mumbai-I [2015-TIOL-04-SC-SC-ST], wherein it has been held that the BCCI was liable to pay penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. They also cited the judgement in the case of ACIT Vs. Krishna Poduval [2006 (1) STR 185 (Ker.)], where Kerala High court held that the incidents of imposition of penalties are 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 (D .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e under Section 78 provisions of Section 76 shall not apply. That having been said, it has to be seen that with effect from 16.05.2008, penalties under Sections 76 and 78 ibid were made mutually exclusive in-as-much-as if the penalty under Section 78 was imposed, the penalty under Section 76 was made unimposable. This amendment with effect from 16.05.2008 in a way reflected the refinement of penal provisions. Indeed it has been held by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE Vs. M/s. Pa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version