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

....Consultant for the Appellant Ms. 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 serv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by him that the matter may be remanded to 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....For this purpose, we remand the matter to the adjudicating 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 t....