2016 (2) TMI 961

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ohan Bansal, Advocate for the appellant, (in STA No. 10 of 2011). Mr. Sudeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant, (in STA No. 12 of 2011). Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing STA Nos. 10 and 12 of 2011 as according to learned counsel for the parties, identical questions of law and facts are involved the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....down by this Hon'ble Court? 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant is engaged in providing services of cable operator and Broadcasting Agency. On 14.1.2005, the officers of Central Excise Division, Sangrur and Central Excise Range, Bathinda searched the business and residential premises of the appellant. D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d penalty under Sections 75A, 76, 77 and 78 of the Act be not imposed. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 31.7.2006 (Annexure A-1) confirmed the demand raised in the show cause notice and imposed penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 75A of the Act, Rs. 100/- per day under Section 76 of the Act, Rs. 100/- under Section 77 of the Act and Rs. 11,46,537/- under Section 78 of the Act. Feeling ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant submitted that while dealing with Sections 76 and 78 of the 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 (C....