9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note that there was a Board Circular dt.1.8.2002 which clarified that when MSO receives signals they first transmit signals to the cable operator who in turn retransmits the same to the viewers through the cable network and the liability is on cable operator providing service to the ultimate subscriber, we accept the plea of appellant that they failed to discharge service tax placing reliance on such Circular. Being interpretational and bonafide doubt, and due to the peculiar facts of the case, we hold that this is a fit case to invoke Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - penalty u/s 77 and 78 set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - ST/40036/2013 - FINAL ORDER NO. 40290/2019 - Dated:- 22-1-2019 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax. On the contrary, if the main cable operators, who provide service to the sub-operator, who in turn provides to the customer, the sub-operator is the person who is liable to pay service tax and not the main operator. That therefore the demand of service tax from the appellant is incorrect. Further the quantification of demand is highly erroneous and not based upon any facts. The proprietor of appellant, Shri V.P. Gokulavanen has given statement dated 24.03.2005 in which he deposed that signals received from M/s. SCV were distributed through sub-operators, who in turn distribute the same to the ultimate customers. The authorities below did not consider this. Further, the onus is on the department to prove with documentary eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provided service directly to the customers as well as through sub-operators. The demand has been raised on such evidence gathered. The appellants had not maintained any accounts nor filed proper returns. Though they took registration and paid service tax of ₹ 2,380/- thereafter did not file returns or pay tax. They have thus concealed the taxable services provided by them. The show-cause notice issued invoking extended period is therefore legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue is with regard to the demand raised under Cable Operator Services. The authorities below have confirmed the demand of ₹ 2,29,978/- alongwith interest and imposed equal penalty. The appellants have contended all along that the services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
