2018 (12) TMI 385

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssue and allow the same on merits. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant was a registered service provider and providing taxable service under the category 'Cable Operator'. During the year 2002-2003 to 2004-2005 the service provider suppressed the actual amount of cable service charges in the guise of repair charges and new connection material charges and for purchase of spare parts and thereby short paid service tax for the period from August, 2002 to March, 2005. Further, from April, 2005 to September, 2005 the taxable value worked out more than the declared value and thus resulted in short payment of service tax. On these allegation a show-cause notice was issued and after following the due process, the original a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2006 has been considered to pass the Order-in-Original. He further submitted that other submissions of the appellants have also not been considered by the original authority and the same were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) also but the Commissioner (Appeals) has also not given any finding on the same. He further submitted that the adjudicating authority has held in the operative part of the order that the differential value of Rs. 9,54,890/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety only) for the period from August 2002 to March 2005 and differential value of Rs. 1,85,392/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Two only) for the period from April 2005 to September 2005 is liable for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1.08.2006, 19.09.2006 and 10.11.2006 have not been considered whereas only the contents of letter dated 09.06.2006 were considered as reply to the show-cause notice and based on that demand was confirmed. Even the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding relating to the withdrawal of the letter dated 09.06.2006 in spite of the ground raised in the grounds of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Further we find that both the authorities have wrongly imposed penalty under Section 76 and 78 which cannot be legally imposed in view of the judgment of the Tribunal cited supra. Further we find that there is a calculation error in the computation of service tax and it appears that the adjudicating authority has taxed Rs. 1,85,392/- (Ru....