9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest for providing the taxable services, we are not considering the merits of the case as to whether service tax is payable by the appellant or not. However, we find that the Cum-tax benefit has not been extended to the appellant in this case, to which it is legally entitled to. The matter should go back to the original authority for a limited purpose of re-quantification of the service tax li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the same are taken up for hearing together and a common order is being passed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Corporation, established under the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990. During the disputed period, the appellant had provided the taxable services falling under the category of Broadcasting Service , Advertising Space or Time Service and Consulting Engineer Servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Advocate submits that the appellant is a statutory body and malafides cannot be attributed for imposition of the penalty. Further, he also pleads for the benefit of Section 80 of the Act, for non-imposition of penalty under Section 77 78 of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice Tax within the stipulated time frame, we are of the view that the provisions of Section 80 of the Act can be invoked for non-imposition of penalties under Section 77 78 of the Act. Therefore, we set aside the penalty imposed in the impugned order under Section 77 78. 8. The appeals are disposed of in above terms. [Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
