TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rging the service tax liability, the review adjudication order of the commissioner was unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. - 38 OF 2008 - 1386 OF 2009 - Dated:- 6-11-2009 - M.V. RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER S. Madhavamurthy for the Appellant. Smt. Joy Kumari Chander for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This appeal is filed against the Review Adjudication Order No. 86/2007, dated 10-9-2007, passed by the Commissioner of Service tax, Bangalore. 2. The relevant facts of the case for consideration are, the appellant was issued a show-cause notice dated 25-4-2005 demanding service tax, interest and imposition of penalties on the ground that they have not paid service tax for the services rendered under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lecom [2009] 20 STT 98. It is the submission that the provisions of section 80 of the Act can be invoked in the absence of any fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, etc. In any case it is the submission that they are not challenging the service tax liability and interest which they have already paid. 4. Heard the learned Jt. CDR who defends the impugned order. She submits that once the adjudicating authority had confirmed the demands, then consequential penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Act should be imposed and provisions of section 80 of the Act cannot be invoked, for non-imposition of penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act for waiver of penalty." From the above findings, I find that the adjudicating authority has clearly given reasons for non-imposition of penalties. It is seen from the records that taxable service, namely Multi System Operator (MSO) service, was brought under purview of Service Tax levy, with effect from 10-9-2004. The period involved in this case is from October 2004 to January 2005. It is also to be noted that there was dispute with the Cable Operators regarding payment of service tax liability under this category. In any case, the reason given by the Commissioner for invoking the extended proviso to section 73 of the Act will come into play for imposition of penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Act does not carry the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
