2008 (3) TMI 154 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - cable operator - appellants admitted that they have started MSO (Multi System operator) operation in December, 2004. Therefore, inclusion of amount (received during the year 2004-05) in question in the assessable value is rightly made - As turn-over of the appellants for the year in dispute, is more than 4 lac the benefit of not. 6/2005 is rightly denied - appellants have not paid service tax on due date, therefore, penalty is rightly imposed

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of amount in the assessable value for the year 2004-05.
2. Denial of benefit under notification No. 6/2005.
3. Discrepancy in the consideration of security deposit.
4. Allowance of credit for service tax paid by the appellants.
5. Imposition of penalty for non-payment of service tax on due date.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the addition of Rs. 3.84 lakhs in the assessable value for the year 2004-05 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants, M/s. Shri Balaji Networks, argued that this addition was incorrect as they only started operating as a Multi System Operator (M.S.O.) from December 2005, not in 2004-05. However, it was found that various cable operators' statements and the appellants' own admission indicated that they did start M.S.O. operations in December 2004. Therefore, the inclusion of the amount in question in the assessable value for 2004-05 was deemed appropriate.

2. Regarding the denial of benefit under notification No. 6/2005, which provides an exemption to service providers with a turnover of less than Rs. 4 lakhs, it was established that the turnover of the appellants exceeded this threshold as per the Commissioner (Appeals) order for the relevant year. Consequently, the denial of the benefit under the notification was upheld.

3. Another issue concerned the discrepancy in the consideration of the security deposit amount. The Revenue contended that the security deposit was Rs. 50,000, whereas evidence presented by the appellants indicated it was Rs. 1 lakh. The Tribunal found that the evidence supported the higher amount of Rs. 1 lakh, leading to the allowance of the Revenue's appeal on this specific issue.

4. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellants were paying service tax and had provided evidence of the same. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly allowed the credit for service tax paid by the appellants as the service recipient.

5. Lastly, the imposition of a penalty for the non-payment of service tax on the due date was considered. It was determined that since the appellants had failed to pay the service tax on time, the penalty imposed was justified. Therefore, both appeals were disposed of based on the above findings.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, providing a comprehensive understanding of the decision rendered in this case.