2008 (3) TMI 83 - AT - Service Tax

Cable operator - appellants admitted that they have started MSO operation in December 2004 - Therefore inclusion of amount in question is the assessable value received during the year 2004-05 is rightly made - notification 6/05 provides exemption to only those service provider whose turnover is less than Rs. 4 lac - As turn-over of the appellants for the year in dispute is more than 4 lac the benefit is rightly denied penalty is justified because tax was not paid on due date

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over the demand for services provided by the appellants as a cable operator.
2. Addition of Rs. 3.84 lakhs in assessable value for the year 2004-05.
3. Denial of benefit under notification No. 6/2005.
4. Discrepancy in the consideration of security deposit amount.
5. Allowance of credit for service tax paid by the appellants.
6. Imposition of penalty for non-payment of service tax on time.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in providing cable operator and Multy System Operator (M.S.O.) services, disputed the addition of Rs. 3.84 lakhs in the assessable value for 2004-05. They argued that this amount should not have been included as they only started M.S.O. operations in December 2005. However, statements from various cable operators indicated M.S.O. services by the appellants in 2004-05. The Tribunal found that the inclusion of the amount in question in the assessable value for 2004-05 was justified based on the evidence provided.

2. Regarding the denial of benefit under notification No. 6/2005, which exempts service providers with turnover less than Rs. 4 lakhs, the Tribunal upheld the denial as the turnover of the appellants exceeded the threshold as per the Commissioner (Appeals) order for the relevant year.

3. The Revenue's appeal raised concerns about the consideration of the security deposit amount. The Tribunal noted that evidence presented by the appellants supported a security deposit of Rs. 1 lakh, contrary to the Commissioner (Appeals) finding of Rs. 50,000. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this issue was allowed.

4. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellants had paid service tax and provided evidence of such payments, leading to the allowance of credit for service tax paid by them as the service recipient. However, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of a penalty as the appellants had not paid the service tax on time, affirming the correctness of the penalty imposition.

5. Ultimately, both appeals were disposed of with the Tribunal's findings on the issues discussed, emphasizing the importance of timely payment of service tax and adherence to regulatory requirements.