TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - These two appeals 265 & 295/07 are filed by the Revenue against Order-in-appeal No dated. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are, the respondents herein were providing taxable service under the category of Cable operator service without obtaining registration and without payment of service tax. O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he interest imposed and penalties imposed on the respondents by following the decision of the Tribunal. Revenue is in appeal against the said Order. 3. Since both the appeals filed by the Revenue are raising a. common issue, they are being disposed by a common Order. 4. Learned JCDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the respondents were providing cable services under the category o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er submission that the penalties and the interest set aside by the learned Commissioner (appeals) is erroneous. In view of this, it is submitted that the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) be set aside and interest and penalty as has been by the adjudicating authority be upheld. 5. None appeared on behalf of the respondents in both the cases. Since the issue of 2007, we take up ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....they were providing cable operator services by taking link connection from one Mr. Nagarj H.S. who was registered with the Central Excise department and that they were unaware of the fact that the link operator should also get registered under service tax and pay service tax. We find that respondents being in the rural area, could not have known intricacies of the taxing statutes like the Finance ....