9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 78 of the Act, this Court has held in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhaina case [2010 (7) TMI 255 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] that Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act, do not envisage imposition of simultaneous penalties. This apart, the matter relating to short payment of tax as well requires to be re-examined by the Tribunal - without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeals and as to the rights of the parties, the appeals are allowed, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside and the matters are remanded to the Tribunal, for adjudication afresh on all the issues in accordance with law. - S.T.A. Nos. 10 and 12 of 2011 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 9-2-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005, the officers of Central Excise Division, Sangrur and Central Excise Range, Bathinda searched the business and residential premises of the appellant. During the course of search, a number of documents were seized and on scrutiny thereof, it was found that the appellant was providing services of cable operator as well as multisystem operation and broadcasting of advertisement. The services of cable operator were brought under the service tax net w.e.f. 16.8.2002 whereas services of Multi System Operator became taxable w.e.f. 10.9.2004. The respondent found that the appellant during the years from 2001-02 to 2004-05 had rendered above said services but failed to pay service tax amounting to ₹ 11,46,537/-. The respondent issued a no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, this Court in STA No.48 of 2010 (Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate v. M/s First Flight Courier Limited) decided on 28.1.2011; STA No.50 of 2010 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissionerate, Ludhiana v. M/s Akash Cable, 1411 Urban Estate, Phase-II, Dugri, Ludhiana) decided on 16.2.2011 and STA No.13 of 2010 (Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhaina) decided on 12.7.2010 , held that the Act does not envisage imposing of simultaneous penalties. It was further submitted that finding recorded by the Tribunal that the appellant did not deposit 25% penalty within one month is factually incorrect. It is prayed that the appeal be allowed and the matter be remitted to the Tribunal to decide the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
