TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been and was taken into account by the lower revenue authorities. Hence, foreknowledge lead to the imposition of recovery of dues assessed as well as imposition of the penalty under Section 78 - penalty u/s 78 upheld. Penalty u/s 76 - effect of amendment, retrospective or prospective? - Held that:- The appellant s contention with respect to retrospective effect of the amendment of Section 78 (which makes the imposition of penalties under Section 76 and 78 mutually exclusively) are unsubstantial as this court in M/s. Bajaj Travels Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax [2011 (8) TMI 423 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that the amendments are prospective in nature and cannot come to the aid of an assessee for past period - penalty u/s 76 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.2012. Besides the tax liability, the Learned Commissioner (Adjudication), who adjudicated show cause notice, ordered, imposing penalties. The relevant part of the extract of the Commissioner s order reads as follows: ORDER i. I confirm the demand of service tax amounting to ₹ 26,36,988/- (Rupees twenty nine lakh thirty six thousand nine hundred eighty eight only) against the assessee i.e. M/s. N.N. Chopra Consultant Pvt. Ltd. On the value of taxable service amounting to ₹ 2,44,74,902/- under Commercial training and Coaching Service and the same be recovered from them under Section 73(1) read with section 68 of the Act; ii. I confirm the demand of Cess amounting to ₹ 58,740/- (Rupees fifty eight thousand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 35E and 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, was rejected by the impugned order. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the findings and penalties imposed by the Commissioner rejecting the contention that in the circumstances of the case, the contention about the excessive imposition of penalties both under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant urges that the Tribunal fell into error, in upholding the two penalties and relies upon the judgments in M /s. Raval Trading Company vs. Commissioner of Service Tax 2016 (42) STR 210 (Guj) and the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court-in the case of First Flight Courier Ltd. - 2011 (22) STR 622 (P H) and Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Pannu Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question. Having regard to the fact of concurrent findings, we are of the opinion that the exercise of such discretion reserving imposition of Section 76 in the circumstances, does not call for interference. The appellant s contention with respect to retrospective effect of the amendment of Section 78 (which makes the imposition of penalties under Section 76 and 78 mutually exclusively) are unsubstantial as this court in M/s. Bajaj Travels Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax (CEAC 6/2009, decided on 03.08.2011) 2012 (25) STR 417 held that the amendments are prospective in nature and cannot come to the aid of an assessee for past period. In view of the aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
