Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... vs Bhargava Software Solutions

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 03-2011 dated 13/05/2011 passed by CC,CE&ST(Appeals), Guntur]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax GUNTUR NULL P.B.NO. 331...C.R.BUILDING, KANNAVARI THOTA, GUNTUR, - 520004 ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s)

Versus

BHARGAVA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS 27-14-4, III FLOOR, PADMAVATHI COMPLEX, RAJAGOPALACHARI STREET, VIJAYAWADA 520 002 Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri R. Gurunathan, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Appellant

None For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 16/04/2015

Date of Decision: 16/04/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21119 / 2015

Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

Respondent is engaged in supplying manpower to various government departments under contract and imparting training in fashion designing to select people under an agreement with the District Rural Development Authority, Krishna District. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant because appellant had not paid service tax and original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for service tax and imposed penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. However, the adjudicating authority did not impose penalty under Section 76 and appeal filed by the Revenue has been rejected in the impugned order by the Commissioner(Appeals).

2. The issue is no longer res integra. In the case of CST, Bangalore Vs. Motor World [2012(27) STR 225 (Kar.)], Honble High Court has held that Sections 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 operate in a mutually exclusive area and penalty cannot be imposed under both and it was also held by the Honble High Court that the amendment providing for penalty under one of the sections is only clarificatory. In view of the above, the appeal is rejected. (Operative part of this order pronounced in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER

Raja.

2