9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority and as affirmed by the appellate authority is that there was no suppression in meeting any Service tax liability. In the wake of such clear and categorical finding of fact, this appeal does not merit examination under Section 35G of the Act, as there is absolutely no scope for interference, in this appeal with the order of the Tribunal. - 137 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2010 - D.V. Shylendra Kumar and N. Ananda, JJ. REPRESENTED BY: Shri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, CGSC,for the Appellant. None,for the Respondent. [Judgment per: D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.]. - The appeal by the Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [for short 'the Act'] is directed against the order of the Central Excise Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utilized Difference S. Tax to be payable Cable Operator : 2002-03 [w.e.f 16-8-021 3,91,23,684/- 19,56,184/- 9,72,907/- - 9,83,277/- 2003-04 2004-05 [Upto 4/04] 7,50,17,299/- 57,43,297/- 19,75,115/- 25,27,953/- 12,45,229/- Internet Advertisement 2001-02 - 1,39,203/- 1,39,203/- - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n or deliberate misrepresentation on the part of the assessee warranting levy of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. It is aggrieved by this order of the Appellate Commissioner setting aside the order of penalty, the Revenue had chosen to file the appeal before the CESTAT. 6. The CESTAT having dismissed the appeal in terms of its order dated 18-6-2009 [copy at Annexure-A] agreeing with the view taken by the Commissioner of Central Excise [Appeals] the present appeal under Section 35G of the Act. 7. We have heard Sri Jeevan Neeralgi, learned Central Government standing counsel for the appellant. 8. Submission of Sri Jeevan Neeralgi, learned Central Government standing counsel for the appellant is that when the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
