2023 (7) TMI 918

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... None for the Appellant Shri Ravinder Jangu , Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per : P. ANJANI KUMAR The officers of Preventive Branch of Central Excise, Chandigarh investigated certain Cable TV Operators (CTOs) who were appointed by M/s SIFY to provide internet service to customers through cable; it was revealed that the CTOs have installed necessary infrastructure f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of OIO and relies on the case of Citi Cable Opera- 2020 (41) GSTL 506 (Tri. Chennai) and this Bench vide Final Order No.60123/20203 dated 11.05.2023. 3. Heard the learned Authorized Representative and perused the records of the case. We find that the appellants have accepted the duty liability of Rs.57,407/- and contested the im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6 of the Act. In such situation even if reasoning given by the appellate authority that if penalty under Section 78 of the Act was imposed, penalty under Section 76 of the Act could never be imposed may not be correct, the appellate authority was within its jurisdiction not to levy penalty under Section 76 of the Act having regard to the fact that penalty equal to service tax had already been impo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nalty under Section 76 and 78 can be seen to be mutually exclusive even before the amendment. 6. Moreover, it was the plea of the appellants that the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 was not given to them. Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 reads as under: 80. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Sect....