2008 (8) TMI 113 - AT - Service Tax

Comm.(A) dismissed appeal for non-compliance to section 35F - appellants plea is that there are three cable operators, operating from the same premises and demand is made from the applicant by treating all the three as one service provider - partner of the appellant disclosed the payment received from cable operators on account of M.S.O. service and revenue is demanding service tax on the amount disclosed by appellant not a fit case for total waiver - Appeal is disposed of by way of remand

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties; Non-compliance with section 35F of the Central Excise Act; Treatment of multiple cable operators as one service provider.

1. Application for Waiver of Pre-Deposit:
The appellants filed an application seeking a waiver of pre-deposit of service tax amounting to Rs. 3,42,955 and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed their appeal due to non-compliance with the conditions of the stay order, which required a deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs. The appellants had only deposited Rs. 1.20 lakhs post the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal noted that the revenue demanded service tax based on the payment received from cable operators for M.S.O. services, and thus, it was not deemed a suitable case for a total waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit an additional Rs. 60,000 within six weeks, in addition to the amount already deposited, to waive the pre-deposit of the remaining service tax and penalties.

2. Non-Compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act:
The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal citing non-compliance with section 35F of the Central Excise Act. However, the Tribunal set aside this order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merit. The Tribunal directed that the appeal be considered on its merits after the appellants deposited the specified amount and were given an opportunity to be heard. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand, allowing for a fresh consideration of the case.

3. Treatment of Multiple Cable Operators as One Service Provider:
The appellants contended that they were being treated as a single service provider despite operating as three separate cable operators - Balaji Cable Network, Rajasthan Cable Network, and Cable Network. The revenue authorities demanded service tax based on the amount disclosed by the appellants, which was received from these cable operators for M.S.O. services. The Tribunal acknowledged this contention but did not find it a sufficient reason for a total waiver of pre-deposit. Instead, the Tribunal directed a partial deposit and remanded the case for further consideration on its merits.