TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nct and separate under the two provisions and even if offences are committed in the course of the same prosecution or arise out of the same Act, penalty can imposable for both the offences under both the sections separately – held that revenue filed this appeal on the ground as to whether penalty is simultaneously imposable under both the sections 76 and 78 of the Act. The revenue has not challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of tax and imposition of penalty. The respondents deposited the tax during investigation. They filed the reply to show-cause notice on 7-8-2007. Thereafter, corrigendum to show-cause notice was issued on 21-8-2007 proposing imposition of penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of tax of Rs.11,75,049 and appropriated the said amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r.). 3. The learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents submits that penalty under section 76 is not warranted in view of imposition of penalty under section 78 of the Act. He relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal: (a) CCE v. Silver Oak Garden Resort [Final Order No. 1650 of 2007 - SM(BR)(PB), dated 2-11-2007]. (b) Kamal Photo Studio Colour Lab v. CCE [2007] 11 ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 STT 391 (Mum.-CESTAT). Secondly, there is no scope to impose double penalty under sections 76 and 78 when a person is found guilty of evasion of tax by reason of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of tax. 5. It is seen that the revenue filed this appeal on the ground as to whether penalty is simultaneously imposable under both the sections 76 and 78 of the Act. The revenue has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
