2018 (8) TMI 554

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ir The appellant are engaged in providing service as cable operator. They were paying service tax from 2002 to 2005 thereafter Multi System Operator (MSO) was brought into tax net. Therefore, they were under bonafide belief that since MSO was brought into tax net, the MSO are supposed to pay the service tax and the appellant was not required to pay the service tax on the same service, and therefo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tax paid by the MSO. He also submits that they are paying entertainment tax to the Government of Gujarat which is required to be deducted from the gross value of the service. Both the submissions were made before the original authority as well as before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), but no finding was given. He submits that the demand of service tax confirmed by the original authority should st .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ongly argued that the appellant was entitled for the Cevnat Credit on the service received from MSO, therefore, to that extent the demand should be reduced. We agree with the submission of the Ld. Counsel that if the appellant is entitled to the Cenvat Credit accordingly the demand of Service Tax should stand reduced to that extent. As regard entertainment tax, there is a finding of the adjudicati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X