9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rather, kept suppressing their value of taxable service till the year 2006, when the matter was actually scrutinized by the Department. There is no denial of the appellant that during the investigation, in furtherance of said scrutiny, his statement was recorded and requisite documents were provided by him. It is thereafter that the impugned show cause notice dated 09.10.2007 was issued by the Department. From the Order in Original it is apparent that the appellant despite being called almost five times could not appear. It is also apparent from the order that he not even filed the reply to the show cause notice. Thus the order announced against the appellant is for lack of evidence. Also, the knowledge of Order-in-Original was with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levision Networks through Multi System Operator (MSO) managed by M/s. Rajasthan Telematics Ltd., Kota and M/s. Radhaswamy Communications, Kota. The party also received signals of the broadcast relay by the MSO. The services provided by the party are taxable services w.e.f. 16.08.2002, which were charged to Service Tax at the rate of 5% upto 13.05.2003 and at the rate of 8% upto 09.09.2004 and thereafter @ 10% alongwith 2% of education cess during the period from 10.09.2004 to 31.03.2006 on the gross amount charged by the cable operator from the subscribers for the said service. 1.1 The Department further observed that during the period from 16.08.2002 to 31.03.2006 both the MSOs raised bills to the appellant on account of service provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly, he got about the impugned adjudication. It is apparent from Order-in-Original as well that the same was passed ex-parte. It is further submitted that the appellant came to know about the Order-in-Original only from a recovery note published in the Newspaper dated 28.01.2012. In response thereto he deposited the amount of Service Tax i.e. ₹ 41,042/- on 23rd July, 2013. On the assurance of the Department that if he deposited the amount of Service Tax there will be no further proceeding against him, that he deposited the said amount. However, in the year 2015 appellant got a phone call from the Department that he has been declared as un-traceable assessee. To find out the exact position, the appellant wrote a letter to Department o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both sides and perusing entire record, I observe and held as follows:- The impugned is the case of cable operator services. Those services brought into the tax net w.e.f. 16.08.2002 by amending Section 65 of Finance Act, 2008. Despite that the party had neither obtained registration from the Department under cable operator services nor filed ST-3 return to the Department. Rather, kept suppressing their value of taxable service till the year 2006, when the matter was actually scrutinized by the Department. There is no denial of the appellant that during the investigation, in furtherance of said scrutiny, his statement was recorded and requisite documents were provided by him. It is thereafter th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it becomes an admitted fact that the knowledge of the impugned adjudication/ Order-in-Original came to the notice of the appellant in the year 2012 itself. It is also appellant's own admission that in furtherance of the said demand note, he made a deposit of ₹ 41,042/- on 23rd July, 2013. It cannot be presumed from any stretch of imagination that demand notice would be containing only the demand of the service tax without specifying about the interest and the amount of penalty to also have been recovered from the appellant. Thus, it becomes clear that the knowledge of Order-in-Original was with the appellant in the year 2012 for filing the appeal which was filed in the year 2016. 7. The only another ground of appellant is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffort to enquire about the orders in furtherance whereof the recovery proceedings as mentioned in the said Newspaper except a letter dated 6th August, 2015 is not opined sufficient for condoning delay of almost 6 years. Same rather amount to be highly negligent act. 9. I draw my support from the case law in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) ELT 163 (S.C.) it is held as follows:- 10. Sufficient cause is an expression which is found in various statutes. It essentially means as adequate or enough. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for delay caused in taking steps. In the instant case, the explanation offered for the abnormal delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
