2019 (3) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appellant was engaged in cable operator service. On investigation, it was found that when compared to the amount paid by cable operators to the MSO, the service tax paid by cable operators was far below the actual tax payable. It was found that the appellant had not discharged the correct service tax for which show cause notice was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the original authority to give the appellant an opportunity to furnish evidence with respect to the eligibility of CENVAT credit on the input service. The consultant also pleaded to set aside the penalties. He submitted that out of the demand of Rs. 3,04,484/-, they had already paid an amount of Rs. 1,48,461/-. 3. The ld. AR Ms. Usha Devi supported the findings in the impugned order. She submit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....djudicating authority who shall look into the plea of adjustment of CENVAT credit for the amount that has to be paid by the appellant. 6. In respect of the penalty, the ld. consultant has submitted that there was rivalry between different cable operators and most of the customers did not pay up the amount for which reason they could not discharge the service tax. Further, if they are eligible for....