2018 (12) TMI 954

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p firm under the name and style of "See for Your Satellite Communications" from 1.4.2005 for providing Multi System Operator (MSO) service. The MSO service was liable to service tax from 1.4.2005. A show-cause notice dated 2.8.2006 was issued to the appellants alleging that they have rendered MSO service during the period April 2005 to July 2005 and have not paid service tax of Rs. 1,41,612/-. The show-cause notice was confirmed by Order-in-Original No.05/2007 dated 2.3.2007, which was also upheld by the Commissioner (A) vide Order-in-Appeal No.165/2008 dated 28.8.2008. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the show-cause notice proposed to demand service tax on a private limited company which is not existent and was neve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 (SC). 2.1 The learned counsel submitted that the proceedings have been initiated under the mistaken notion of law. The show-cause notice clearly shows that the appellant is a MSO and is an extended service provide to cable operators. Service Tax has been demanded on the amounts collected through different persons. He submitted that as there is no intent to evade payment of duty, imposition of penalty does not arise. Moreover, as held in CST, Bangalore vs. Motor World: 2012 (27) STR 225 (Kar.), penalty cannot be imposed simultaneously under Section 76 and 78. 3. The learned AR reiterated findings of OIO and has relied upon S. M. Steel Ropes vs. CCE, Mumbai: 2014 (304) ELT 591 (Tri.-Mum.) and contended that demand can be confirmed on the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has signed the register record from the office of M/s. World Vision TV Network. Moreover, we find that Shri Prajesh. A has accepted the statement dated 12.8.2005 that the total value of service provided by them was Rs. 15,50,000/- from 1.4.2005 to 30.6.2005 and Rs. 5,25,000/- for the month of July 2005. He also accepted that the total liability to service tax was Rs. 2,11,650/- and the same will be paid by them. He also submitted a register showing connections and collections maintained by them. We find that the appellant has not made a case for themselves and in view of the contradictions in the appellant's submissions, we have no reason to conclude that the appellants are not chargeable to service tax. We find that the statement was never....