2010 (4) TMI 354 - AT - Service Tax

Stay- Valuation- confirmation of the Service Tax amount along with Education Cess has arisen on the ground that the assessee had not paid Service Tax on the entire amount collected by them for rendering Cable Operator Services and had suppressed the value of taxable services in their S.T.-3 Returns. Duplication in demand on advance amounts collected to be gone in detail with reference to accounts. Held that- prima facie case for complete waiver not made out. Pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs directed considering amount deposited already and absence of liability for part period.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax, Education Cess, penalty, and interest.
- Dispute over Service Tax amount on Cable Operator Services and advance payments.
- Error in including Channel Carriage Fee under Business Auxiliary Services.
- Double consideration of advance subscription in service tax liability calculation.
- Demand of service tax on debtors balance prior to a specific date.
- Payment already made during the proceedings.
- Prima facie case for complete waiver of confirmed service tax amount.

Analysis:

The case involved a stay petition seeking a waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax, Education Cess, penalty, and interest. The dispute centered around the Service Tax amount related to Cable Operator Services and advance payments received. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand based on the non-payment of Service Tax on the total collected amount for services and the failure to discharge duty liability on advance payments. The appellant argued against the inclusion of Channel Carriage Fee under Business Auxiliary Services, highlighting errors in the consideration of advance subscriptions and demanding service tax on debtors' balances before a specific date.

The Chartered Accountant representing the appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority erred in calculating the service tax liability, especially in including advance subscriptions twice and demanding service tax on debtors' balances prior to a specific date. The Departmental Representative supported the Authority's findings, emphasizing the verification process undertaken before concluding the appellant's liability. The Tribunal examined both sides' submissions and records, acknowledging the appellant's status as a service provider but questioning the accuracy of the figures presented by each party.

The Tribunal found discrepancies in the demand for service tax on debtors' balances predating a specific date, noting that such amounts might have been paid subsequently. It ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the inclusion of certain balances in taxable services, considering them exempt from service tax liability. While acknowledging the need for a detailed review of the double consideration of advance collections, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specific amount within a set timeframe, taking into account the payment already made and the appellant's non-liability for certain service tax demands. The Tribunal granted a partial waiver of the pre-deposit condition pending the appeal's final disposal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the various issues raised by the parties, providing a nuanced analysis of the service tax liability, advance payments, and debtors' balances while balancing the interests of both the appellant and the tax authorities.