TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sa for the Respondent. ORDER T.K. Jayaraman, Technical Member - The revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 45/2006, Central Excise, dated 31-3-2006, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore. 2. Heard both the sides in the matter. 3. The Respondents were rendering services of Multi-System Operator (MSO). They were also doing 'Internet Advertisem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clusion that between 16-8-2002 to 10-9-2004, the Respondent did not function as a Cable Operator and therefore no liability can be cast on them. As regards the short levy, he came to the conclusion that the demand for a sum of Rs. 22,28,506 under the category of Cable Operator from 16-8-2002 to 30-4-2004 is not maintainable. In respect of the second demand consequent to the collection of Feeder ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Consequently he has taken a lenient view and did not impose penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, penalty was imposed under section 78 of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order set aside the penalty under section 78 and upheld the remaining part of the Order-in-Original. The revenue is aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in value the terms of section 78 of the Act are squarely attracted in the case and penalty thereunder was rightly imposed on the assessee by the Assistant Commissioner. (ii) Further the ingredients required for imposition of penalty under section 78 of the Act are same as those prescribed for invoking extended period of five years under section 73 thereof. In other words, section 78 of the Act....