Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.50 seconds)
Yes vs Represented By : Shri Manoj Kutty (Ar) on 11 April, 2014 cites

Assistant Commissioner Of Central ... vs Krishna Poduval on 20 October, 2005

17.?However, in the instant case, the appellate authority, including the Tribunal, has chosen to impose the penalty under both the Sections. Since the penalty under both the Sections is imposable as rightly held by Kerala High Court in Krishna Poduval (supra), the appellant cannot contend that once penalty is imposed under Section 78, there should not have been any penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act. In view of the above findings, I hold that penalties under both Sections 76 and 78 were imposable simultaneously on the respondents for failure to pay service tax for the period prior to 10.05.2008 although show cause notices were issued to them in the year 2010/2011.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 138 - S Jagan - Full Document

M/S Bajaj Travels Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Service Tax on 3 August, 2011

11.?The penalty imposable under S. 76 is for failure to pay service tax by the person liable to pay the same in accordance with the provisions of S. 68 and the Rules made thereunder, whereas S. 78 relates to penalty for suppression of the value of taxable service. Of course these two offences may arise in the course of the same transaction, or from the same act of the person concerned. But we are of opinion that the incidents of imposition of penalty are distinct and separate and even if the offences are committed in the course of same transaction or arises out of the same act, the penalty is imposable for ingredients of both the offences. There can be a situation where even without suppressing value of taxable service, the person liable to pay service tax fails to pay. Therefore, penalty can certainly be imposed on erring persons under both the above Sections, especially since the ingredients of the two offences are distinct and separate.  Similarly, in the case of Bajaj Travels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax  [2012 (25) STR 417 (Del.)], the Honble Delhi High Court has held as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 20 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Elgi Equipments Ltd. on 29 September, 1997

6. Regarding the first issue, I find that an identical question whether section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944, which was brought on the statue on 28.09.1996 had retrospective operation, was raised before the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Elgi Equipments Ltd.  [2001 (128) ELT 52 (S.C.)], and the Honble Apex Court held as under:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 0 - Cited by 44 - Full Document
1   2 Next