MULTI TRACK CABLE NETWORK Vs. CST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relevant fats of the case, in brief, are that the Appellants are engaged in providing transmission of programme by Cable at the premises of the clients. The service tax was introduced on Cable Services by Notification No. 8/2002 -ST dated 1.8.2002 w.e.f. 16.08.2002. It has been alleged in the show cause notice that while scrutinizing the records of M/s. Win Cables, it was found that the Appellant has taken line from M/s. Win Cable, Multi System Operator. It was also found that the Appellant has not filed any Service Tax Return nor paid any Service Tax to the Government. The Appellant was summoned for appearance on 24.03.2005 and 4.4.2005. The Appellant produced the copy of the Income Tax Return for the financial year 2002 -03 and 2003 -2004 and on the basis of such records, demand of tax was confirmed. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of tax of Rs. 95,410/ - and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,90,820/ -under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, Rs. 200/ - per day under Section 76, which comes to Rs. 95,410/ - and penalty of Rs. 1,000/ - per Return totalling to Rs. 5,000/ - under Section 77. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication Order.

(2.) LD . Advocate on behalf of the Appellant submits that it is apparent on the face of the record, that the Appellant had no intention to evade payment of tax as they produced any Income Tax Return for calculation of the tax. He further submits that the levy was introduced w.e.f. 16.08.2002 and the Appellant is a small cable operator and had no knowledge of the levy of the tax. In any event, they raised the bills to the customers and also recorded in the their register that they have no intention to evade payment of duty. So, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in this case. He fairly submits that the Appellant is a small Cable Operator and tax is payable and, therefore, not contesting the tax, they paid the tax, but no penalty should be imposed.

(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the ld. Advocate is not disputing the demand of tax and, therefore, the demand of tax is upheld. Regarding penalty, it is seen from the record, that levy was introduced on 16.2.2002 and the Appellant is a small Cable Operator. It is noted that the central excise officers detected the non -payment of the tax by the Appellant on the basis of the records of M/s. Win Cable Multi System Operator. It is noted that the Appellant produced the Income Tax Return on the basis of which, demand of tax was calculated. Therefore, taking into account of levy of tax on the initial stage, the imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act is not proper. In the case of Krishna Poduval (supra), it has been held that the person, who is guilty of suppression deserves no sympathy under Section 80 of the Act. In the present case, I do no find any material that that the Appellant suppressed the facts with intent to evade payment of tax.