Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Universal Communication vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 18 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. ST/86545/2015 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. NGP/EXCUS/000/APP/228/14-15 dtd. 22/12/2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur ) For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
======================================================
M/s. Universal Communication
:
Appellant
VS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Nagpur.
:
Respondent
Appearance
None for Appellant
Ms. P. Vinita Sekhar, Dy. Commissioner, (A.R) for respondent
CORAM:
Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing : 18/03/2016
Date of decision: 18/03/2016
ORDER NO.
The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. NGP/EXCUS/000/APP/228/14-15 dtd. 22/12/2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur, whereby the Ld. Commissioner upholding the Order-in-Original No. 70/VW/JC/ST/2013 dt. 31.12.2013, rejected the appeal of the appellant.
2. The issue involved in the present case is that whether the service tax is liable to be paid on the Entertainment Tax in the case of Cable Operator Service. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the deduction on account of Entertainment Tax on the ground that the appellant have not shown the amount of Entertainment Tax in their bills raised to their client and also the appellant have not submitted the documents regarding the charging of Entertainment Tax to client and payment thereafter to the government authority.
3. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice.
4. Ms. Vinita Sekhar the Ld. Deputy Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. She submits that the appellant have not produced the documents showing of the Entertainment Tax in the bills of Cable Operator Service raised to their client as prescribed in the Circular F.No. B.11/1/2002-TRU dt. 1.8.2002. According to which, the Entertainment Tax shall not be liable to service tax subject to condition that it is shown separately in the bill raised to the client by the service provider.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the Ld. AR and perused the record. I find 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. Therefore, the demand attributed to the Entertainment Tax was confirmed and upheld by the appellate authority. In my considered view, 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. Since the documents were not submitted before the lower authority, the matter needs to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority. I therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to verify the payment particulars of Entertainment Tax, and if it is found that the Entertainment Tax has been correctly paid, the demand shall not sustain attributed to the Entertainment Tax. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority in the above terms.
(Pronounced & Dictated in court) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) SM.
4Appeal No. ST/86545/2015