2014 (8) TMI 554 - AT - Service Tax

Broadcasting service - allotment of airtime and uplink income - Earlier assessee filed application for cancellation of registration but later obtained registration for Business Support Service - Held that - Applicant got the permission to up-link their own TV channels. It is noted that P&L Account for the year ending 31.3.2005 showed fees for allotment of airtime and up-linking charges separately. Thus it is clear that applicant had been collecting fees for allotment of air time. So, prima facie, we are unable to accept the contention of learned advocate that they were not rendering any service of broadcasting. It is seen from the impugned order that in the P&L Account for the year ended 31.3.2006 in the Schedule X relating to administration and other expenses, the expenses in respect of cassettes, tapes and carriage fees were shown separately. The contention of the learned advocate is that they have collected up-linking charges from the other two parties as per the agreement would be examine at the time of appeal hearing. We have also considered that audit party during their visit in 2010 detected collection of broadcasting charges after examining the records. - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of service tax under the category of "Broadcasting Service" for the period from 2005-06 to 2009-10.
2. Whether the applicant was rendering broadcasting service or up-linking service.
3. Quantification of demand and inclusion of reimbursement of loans.
4. Time-barred demand and validity of the notice served.
5. Validity of the service of the notice under Section 37(C) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The applicant obtained registration for "Broadcasting Service" but later requested cancellation citing they were only undertaking up-linking services. The audit party found income accounted under "broadcasting service," leading to a show cause notice for service tax demand. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of tax, interest, and penalty.

Issue 2:
The applicant argued they were providing up-linking services, supported by permission letters and agreements with up-linking agencies. They contended that the demand was unsustainable as they were not rendering broadcasting services. The Revenue representative highlighted the Profit & Loss Account indicating broadcasting services, leading to a dispute on the nature of services provided.

Issue 3:
Concerns were raised regarding the quantification of the demand, including the inclusion of reimbursement of loans. The applicant claimed the demand was not properly quantified, and a portion of the paid amount was not accounted for by the adjudicating authority.

Issue 4:
The applicant argued the demand was time-barred, stating no suppression of facts to evade tax payment. They challenged the service of the notice beyond the extended limitation period of 5 years, questioning the validity of the notice served on a Sunday outside the office premises.

Issue 5:
The judgment referred to Section 37(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the valid service of the notice. The court directed the applicant to pre-deposit a specified amount, with the balance subject to waiver upon deposit. The applicant's previous deposit was acknowledged, pending verification by the Service Tax Divisional Office.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the disputed demand of service tax under the "Broadcasting Service" category, analyzing the nature of services provided, quantification issues, time-barred claims, and the validity of the notice served. The court's decision highlighted the need for pre-deposit and verification of previous payments, ensuring compliance with the legal provisions.