9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Suchitra Sharma, DR Per Mr. R.K. Singh : Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 26.08.2009, which upheld Order-in-Original dated 12.06.2008 which:- (i) In respect of Show Cause Notice dated 06.06.2007, confirmed service tax demand of Rs. 17,77,604/- along with interest and penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. (ii) In respect of Show Cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) it had deposited the entire impugned service tax demand amounting to Rs. 35,14,649/- with interest and also deposited 25% of the said amount as penalty within 30 days of the receipt of the impugned order and that the penalty under Section 76 ibid should not be imposed as penalty under Section 78 ibid has been imposed. 3. We have considered the contentions of the appellant. There is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-TIOL-874-HC-P&H-ST) has held that even if at the relevant time the penalties under Section 76 & 78 were not mutually exclusive, once penalty under Section 78 has been imposed, penalty under Section 76 ibid may not be justified. We also have no difficulty in agreeing with the appellants that maximum penalty under Section 77 was only Rs. 1000/-." In the light of the said judicial pronouncem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
