2009 (10) TMI 266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Asmita Nayak for the Respondent. ORDER 1. Revenue filed this appeal against Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby penalty imposed under sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside.  2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in providing taxable service under the category of Multi-System Operator (MSO) which was brought unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tice and contested the demand of tax and, therefore, it is not a fit case to invoke section 80 of the Act, 1994. It is his contention that Commissioner (Appeals) while setting aside the penalties had not considered the facts of the case properly. 4. Learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents submits that levy of tax on MSO was introduced on 10-9-2004 and the period of dispute is October, 200....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er appreciation of the case, finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below:- "In this regard, the appellants have pleaded that they were under bona fide belief of misinterpretation of chain of service tax credit moving from cable operator to MSO and MSO to Broadcaster. As there was no clarity in the mind of general public about the payment of service tax liability through Cenvat cre....