9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is an operator of M/s BPCL filling station at village Nanakpur, Goindwal Road, Dist. Kapurthala. The said filling stations was company owned company operated outlets of BPCL and the appellant was looking after the receipt and accountal of petroleum products at the COCO outlet including sales to the customers. The company were maintaining daily stock register at said outlet and appellant was reporting daily closing stock to the territory Manager, (Retail) BPCL, Jalandhar. The petroleum products were sold at rates as advised by the company and the amount so collected deposited in BPCL's bank account. The statutory taxes, charges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 1,70,589/- along with interest and equal penalty under Section 76 & 78 and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77. 4. Heard both parties and perused the record. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts in the law. He further submits that the appellant was only an operator of BPCL and was looking after the company owned company operated outlet on commission basis and the petroleum products were sold advised by the company and the amount was collected and deposited in BPCL's bank account. He further submits that the appellant was only get ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er submits that imposition of penalty under both the sections of 76 & 78 of the finance act is bad in law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhiana reported in 2011 (24) STR 173 (P&H). He further submits that the appellant has deposited Rs. 2,40,598/- vide two TR6 challans both dated 31.05.2007 which also find mentioned in the show cause notice issued by the respondent. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 9. After considering the submission of both the parties and perusal of the material on record we find that the appellant was only operating the BPCL filling stations which was COCO outlet a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
