9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l is directed against the impugned order dated 21.07.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the department and modified the order-in-original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are the assessee was issued a show cause notice dated 02.07.2007 asking them to show cause to the Joint Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 and 78 should not be imposed. 3. On these allegations, a show cause notice dated 02.07.2007 was issued to the appellant and after following the due process of law, the Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,04,756/- for the period June 2005 to December 2006 under section 73(2) and interest under section 75 of FA, 1994 and appropriated the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 77 is imposable. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Heard both the parties and perused records. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the judicial precedent on the same issue. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons under section 76 and 78 cannot be simultaneously imposed. Further, I also find that the Adjudicating Authority has given the benefit by observing that once penalty under section 78 is imposed, then no separate penalty under section 77 or 76 are mandated. By following the ratio of the said decision, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
