Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shree Sainath Communication-ii

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Shree Sainath Communication-ii

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 22, 2006

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41906

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/41906
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: M Ravindran
Decided On: Feb 22, 2006
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Respondent

Shree Sainath Communication-ii

Legal References

Reported In: (2007)8STT343

Excerpt

1. this appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 31-1-2005 wherein the commissioner appeals has set aside the penalties imposed on the respondents.2. the respondent is absent despite notice. heard learned d.r. and perused the records. i find from the record that the respondent is a very small scale cable operator, may be doing his operation from the house. i also find that it is admitted fact that he was a small time operator and he was unaware of the provisions of law and intricacy and misunderstanding created by the cable operators association. learned commissioner appeals has considered this aspect and set aside the penalties imposed on the respondents. to my mind order-in-appeal dated 1-1-2005 is correct and deserves to be upheld and no interference is called for. the department's appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-1-2005 wherein the Commissioner Appeals has set aside the penalties imposed on the respondents.

2. The respondent is absent despite notice. Heard learned D.R. and perused the records. I find from the record that the respondent is a very small scale cable operator, may be doing his operation from the house. I also find that it is admitted fact that he was a small time operator and he was unaware of the provisions of law and intricacy and misunderstanding created by the cable operators association. Learned Commissioner Appeals has considered this aspect and set aside the penalties imposed on the respondents. To my mind Order-in-Appeal dated 1-1-2005 is correct and deserves to be upheld and no interference is called for. The department's appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Shree Sainath Communication-ii Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge M Ravindran