TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -DB - ST/A/57435/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 27-10-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep. by Shri A.K. Batra, CA for the appellant. Rep. by Ms. Neha Garg, AR for the respondent. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dated 6.1.2012 of Commissioner (Adjudication), Service Tax, New Delhi. The appellants are engaged in providing Commercial Training and Coaching and the services are liable to service tax in terms of provisions of Finance Act, 1994. As the appellants did not discharge liability of service tax, proceedings were initiated against them to demand and recover service tax for the period 9.9.2004 to 31.3.2008. The Original Authority adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examined the identical dispute and concluded that the penalty would be liable as per the provisions at the time of offence and not at the time of issuance of notice. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The only dispute to be decided in the present case is regarding the liability of the appellant for penalty under Section 76 when penalty under Section 78 was also imposed. The service tax liability along with interest has already been discharged by the appellant and the same has not been contested. We note that the ld. Consultant for the appellant submitted that after the amendment of the provisions of Section 78 on 10.05.2008, no penalty can be imposed both under Section 76 and Section 78 in the same cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at if a part of a statute is deleted, Section 6 would nonetheless apply . Thus, if the effect of the amendment is omission of penalty in certain cases, the general clauses Act would still be operative and penalty would be liable as per the provisions at the time of offence and not at the time of issuance of notice. 7. In view of the above analysis, which drew support from the legal position as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court, we find that the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 76 cannot be questioned on this legal point. Since the ratio followed by the above mentioned decision of the Tribunal is on this very same issue, we find no merit in the present appeal by the appellant. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
