9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able operator service’ - demand upheld. Extended period of limitation - Whether the extended time proviso, circumstances in which the appellant operated is invokable or not? - Held that:- The Since the assessee was very much paying service tax as well as filing the Service tax returns for the other services , they cannot claim that they were not aware about the changes that came into effect from 10.9.2004 - longer period of limitation is available to the Revenue. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 987 of 2009 - Final Order No. 52904 /2018 - Dated:- 5-9-2018 - Hon ble Mr. C L Mahar, Member (Technical) And Hon ble Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Ms Priyanka Goel, Advocate for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to ultimate subscriber of the cable service. As they are providing signals to cable operators and they are not in the service of providing cable operator services directly to the ultimate subscriber and therefore, they were under the impression that such service is beyond the scope of cable operator services and therefore not liable to Service Tax. It has also been contended that the Show cause notice dated 08.01.2007 is hit by period of limitation as the appellant has not suppressed, mis-declared any facts with an intention to evade the levy service tax. As they were under firm belief on the basis of CBEC s clarifications dated 1.8.2002 (supra) have the valid ground to plea that the services provided by them does not fall under the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court, learned advocate has contended that penalty under section 78 is also not imposable. 4. We have also heard the learned DR who has reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) s order. 5. We have heard both the sides and have perused the record of appeal. It is a matter of fact that the appellants are registered Service provider and they have been filing Service tax returns for other services provided by them namely advertising agency services . It takes us to infer that the appellants are well conversant about the provisions of Service tax law as they have been complying with the same in respect of other services provided by them. It is also a matter of record that the definition under section 65 (20) has been amended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, partner in his statement dated 15.6.2006 has stated that they were aware that service tax is leviable on MSO as the broadcaster such as Star TV, Sony TV, ESPN has been charging service tax from them on the invoices raised by them for providing the signals to them for further transmission as MSO and therefore, it is absolutely wrong on the part of the appellant to say that there was confusion because of Circular dated 1.8.2002. 8. The judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court as well as decisions of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Jaipur vs. Skymedia is concerned, there is a vast difference in the facts of the matter and same are not applicable in this case because here the appellants were aware about the developments and changes in the law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
