9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. ORDER The appellant is before us challenging the imposition of penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. Counsel for the appellant submits that while considering Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act, this Court in STA No. 48 of 2010 titled as Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate v. M/s First Flight Courier Limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, if the matter may be reconsidered as there are prima facie errors in the order passed by the CESTAT. 4. The appellant commenced operations in September, 2005 and though admittedly, offering taxable services did not get itself registered as a service provider. The appellant eventually got itself registered as a service provider in March, 2007 and deposited arrears of Service Tax and inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he outstanding amount of Service Tax, so far as the period prior to 19-4-2006 is concerned. (ii) I impose a penalty of two hundred rupees for every day during which failure to pay Service Tax continues or at the rate of two percent of such tax, per month, whichever is higher, starting with the first day after the due date till the date of actual payment of the outstanding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na and STA No. 13 of 2010 - Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhaina that Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act, do not envisage imposition of simultaneous penalties. This apart, there appears to be error in the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the appellant did not deposit 25% of penalty within one month of its impositions. The Tribunal lost sight of the fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
