9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were also imposed under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant is not contesting the service tax demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority. However, the grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that simultaneous penalty cannot be imposed under Section 76 and 78 ibid. 2. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the entire amount of service tax along with interest and 25% of penalty imposed under Section 78 ibid was deposited by the appellant. He, further submits that since 25% penalty has been deposited under Section 78, the balance amount of penalty should be waived. With regard to imposition of penalty both under Section 76 and 78, the Ld. Advocate submits that simultaneous penalty under both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is that simultaneous penalty under both section 76 and 78 ibid cannot be imposed. The short question involved in this appeal for consideration by the Tribunal is as to whether the amendment in Section 78 vide Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 10.05.2008 should have retrospective application or should apply prospectively. With regard to applicability of the said amendment prospectively the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bajaj Travels Ltd. (supra) have held that such amendment cannot have the retrospective application in absence of any specific stipulation of that effect. Relevant paragraph in the said judgment is extracted herein below. "16. No doubt, Section 78 of the Act has been amended by the Finance Act, 2008 and the amendment provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Moreover, the amount involved is Rs. 51,026/- only." The Court, thus, chose not to interfere with the aforesaid discretion of the Tribunal." 6. Further by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bajaj Travels (supra), this Tribunal in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra) has also held that simultaneous penalties under Section 76 & 78 ibid are imposable for the period prior to 10.05.2008. The decision of this Tribunal in the case of Patiala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
