- (1.) 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"). 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 Limited, 2011 22 STR 622, in STA No. 50 of 2010 titled as Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissionerate, Ludhiana v. M/s. Akash Cable, 1411 Urban Estate, Phase-II, Ehagri, Ludhiana, in STA No. 13 of 2010 titled as Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhiana, 2011 24 STR 173 held that the Act does not envisage imposing of simultaneous penalties. Counsel for the appellant further submits that finding recorded by the Tribunal that the appellant did not deposit 25% penalty within one month is factually incorrect as the adjudicating authority did not impose any penalty. It is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the matter may be remitted to the CESTAT to decide the matter afresh.
(2.) Counsel for the Revenue submits that he has no objection, if the matter may be reconsidered as there are prima facie errors in the order passed by the CESTAT.
(3.) 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 interest, on 2-5-2007. The adjudicating authority, however, issued a notice dated 3-4-2008, calling upon the appellant to show cause why penalty should not be imposed but eventually held that as Service Tax was deposited before issuance of the show cause notice and the appellant has furnished a bona fide explanation, penalty cannot be levied.;