2016 (9) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant Shri V.K. Kaushik, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 18/ST/2012/C dated 30/03/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding escapement of service tax liability under the category of 'Multi System .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ngs. 5. Learned Chartered Accountant would try to convince us that the service tax liability 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-transmit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ories of services; extended period can be invoked for the demand of such service tax and whether the appellant is liable for interest and penalties under various section.   We find that the adjudicating authority has recorded detailed findings on each and every issue separately and serially. 7.1. We find that, as regards, the tax liability on set top boxes, it is recorded that the appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... adjudicating authority has imposed penalty under Section 76 up to May 2008and for the subsequent period he has not imposed any penalty under Section 76 but under Section 78.  In view of this position, this argument also fails.  10. In sum, we hold that the appellant has no merits and the appeal is rejected by upholding the impugned order in toto.  (Pronounced in Court)
Case l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X