2016 (11) TMI 283 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - Whether the service tax is liable to be paid on the Entertainment Tax in the case of Cable Operator Service - Held that - the appellant have submitted the details of the payment of Entertainment Tax made to the government authority through their bank account. It appears that the appellant have not submitted all the documents before the lower authority - even though the Entertainment Tax amount is not shown separately in the bills, but it is proved from the challan and payments particulars that the Entertainment Tax has been paid by the appellant to the concerned government authority, the amount of Entertainment Tax shall not be liable to service tax - Appeal is disposed of by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of service tax on Entertainment Tax in Cable Operator Service.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner, upholding the rejection of the appellant's appeal against the Order-in-Original. The main issue was whether service tax is payable on Entertainment Tax in Cable Operator Service. The Ld. Commissioner denied the deduction of Entertainment Tax due to the absence of its display in the bills to clients and the lack of submission of related documents.

Despite the appellant's absence during the proceedings, Ms. Vinita Sekhar, the Deputy Commissioner (A.R.), representing the Revenue, reiterated the findings of the impugned order. She highlighted the non-production of documents reflecting Entertainment Tax in the bills, as required by the Circular F. No. B.11/1/2002-TRU. This circular mandates the separate display of Entertainment Tax in bills to exempt it from service tax.

After reviewing the submissions and records, the Member (Judicial) observed that the appellant had provided evidence of paying Entertainment Tax to the government authority through bank transactions. While acknowledging the absence of complete document submission, the Member noted that the demand linked to Entertainment Tax was upheld due to this lapse. However, considering the proof of payment through challans and bank records, the Member concluded that if the Entertainment Tax was indeed paid to the government authority, it should not be subject to service tax. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for verifying the payment details. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of by remanding it to the original adjudicating authority for further examination.