9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CCE, Salem [2018 (2) TMI 402 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that in respect of an assessee neither receiving television signals nor involved in distribution of such signals, but merely being an intermediary between MSO and franchisees (Local Cable Operator), and entertained bona fide belief of non-leviability of tax on them as Cable Operator, penalty not imposable under Sections 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The penalties imposed on the appellants under Section 76, 78 and 78 of the Finance Act, are set aside without disturbing the demand and interest - appeal allowed. - ST/251/2011 - FINAL ORDER No. 41332/2018 - Dated:- 9-4-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation. The fact of filing ST-3 returns is not disputed by the department. They have also declared the discharge of service tax liability on the amount retained by the appellant. The appellants were under the bonafide belief that service tax would be leviable only on the amounts retained by them and there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade payment of tax. He prayed that the penalties may be set aside considering the appellant s bonafide belief and actions. He further submitted that SCN has not alleged any mensrea on the part of the appellant and mere non-payment or short payment cannot be construed for levy of penalty on the appellant. He submitted that it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1994. The adjudicating authority in his findings in para 14 has stated that I find that there is no proof/documentary evidence in the file to prove the collection of subscription of ₹ 22,12,289/- from the customers . In absence of any specific evidence for the department, collection amount as voluntarily disclosed by the appellant should have been accepted. There is no allegation of suppression in the SCN. Moreover, the appellants contest only the penalties imposed on them. The case laws relied on by the appellants are to the effect that in respect of an assessee neither receiving television signals nor involved in distribution of such signals, but merely being an intermediary between MSO and franchisees (Local Cable Operator), and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
