9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... – interest – Held that: - appellant had not recorded the amounts received by him and declared to the department in the returns filed by them. In the absence of any such declaration of the amounts in their returns, Revenue would not be in a position to come to a conclusion that the said amounts are taxable - extended period correctly invoked – demand of interest upheld. Imposition of penalties – Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 – Held that: - penalties cannot be imposed simultaneously under Sections 76 and 78. Here, penalty is imposed under Section 76 up to May 2008 and for the subsequent period he has not imposed any penalty under Section 76 but under Section 78 – penalty rightly imposed. Appeal rejected – decided again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility does not arise on them as the service tax demanded is in respect of set top boxes which is considered as integral part of the service provided by the appellant, which is erroneous. It is his submission that the appellant being a MSO, the activity of receiving signals from broadcaster and re-transmitting the same would fall under the cable operator service and it can be done even without the set top box. It is his submission that the service tax confirmed on cable laying charges under erection, commissioning and installation service is also incorrect as also taxing the customers would fall under the category of cable operator service . 6. Learned AR would take us through the records and submit that the amounts which have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erection, installation and commissioning is also correct as the appellant has not contested the demand. 7.4. The major demand as to the advertisements and channel promotion receipts is also correctly confirmed as it is undisputed that the appellant herein being a cable operator broadcast advertisements (local) and it is also seen that the appellant has not contested the said allegation in the show cause notice. 8. As regards the contention that the demand is hit by limitation, this argument is also without any merits as the appellant had not recorded the amounts received by him under this heading and declared to the department in the returns filed by them. In the absence of any such declaration of the amounts in their returns, Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
