Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ucn Cable Network Pvt. Ltd vs Nagpur on 14 July, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
APPEAL NO: ST/390/2012
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 18/ST/2012/C dated 30/03/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur.]
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Devender Singh, Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
:
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
:
No
3.
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
:
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
:
Yes
UCN Cable Network Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant
Vs
Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs
Nagpur
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Madhav Vichore, Chartered Accountant for the appellant Shri V.K. Kaushik, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Date of hearing: 14/07/2016 Date of decision: 14/07/2016 ORDER NO: ____________________________ Per: M V Ravindran:
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 18/ST/2012/C dated 30/03/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur.
2. Heard both the sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this case is regarding escapement of service tax liability under the category of Multi System Operator and Cable Operator services.
4. During the period 2007-08 to 2010-11 the appellant was providing the services of cable operator and were registered with the authorities for rendering of such services, business auxiliary services and broadcasting services. It was noticed that the appellant had received various amounts for providing the services and recorded the same in the balance sheet and did not discharge service tax liability on them. Show cause notice was issued which was contested by the appellant. The adjudicating authority after following due process of law, did not agree with the contentions raised and confirmed the demands raised along with interest and imposed penalties. He also appropriated the amount paid by the appellant during the proceedings.
5. Learned Chartered Accountant would try to convince us that the service tax liability does not arise on them as the service tax demanded is in respect of set top boxes which is considered as integral part of the service provided by the appellant, which is erroneous. It is his submission that the appellant being a MSO, the activity of receiving signals from broadcaster and re-transmitting the same would fall under the cable operator service and it can be done even without the set top box. It is his submission that the service tax confirmed on cable laying charges under erection, commissioning and installation service is also incorrect as also taxing the customers would fall under the category of cable operator service.
6. Learned AR would take us through the records and submit that the amounts which have been confirmed by the Commissioner are correctly taxable as these are all in relation to the services rendered by the appellant.
7. On consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the services rendered by them under various categories of services; extended period can be invoked for the demand of such service tax and whether the appellant is liable for interest and penalties under various section. We find that the adjudicating authority has recorded detailed findings on each and every issue separately and serially.
7.1. We find that, as regards, the tax liability on set top boxes, it is recorded that the appellant is charging rentals for set-top boxes from their customers and the said amount as recovered is shown in their books of accounts as lease/rental. It has been held correctly by the adjudicating authority that set top boxes are integral part of the services provided by the appellant as the same enhanced the receipt of the signals by the customers of the appellant. Hence the lease amount received by the appellant is liable to be taxed under the said services.
7.2. As regards the service tax liability on the amounts received for cable operator service, we find that there is no dispute and the assessee-appellant has not contested the demand of service tax.
7.3. We find that the service tax liability on laying of cables under the category of erection, installation and commissioning is also correct as the appellant has not contested the demand.
7.4. The major demand as to the advertisements and channel promotion receipts is also correctly confirmed as it is undisputed that the appellant herein being a cable operator broadcast advertisements (local) and it is also seen that the appellant has not contested the said allegation in the show cause notice.
8. As regards the contention that the demand is hit by limitation, this argument is also without any merits as the appellant had not recorded the amounts received by him under this heading and declared to the department in the returns filed by them. In the absence of any such declaration of the amounts in their returns, Revenue would not be in a position to come to a conclusion that the said amounts are taxable. In view of this, we hold that the extended period is correctly invoked in the case in hand. Service tax liability by invoking extended period of limitation is upheld along with interest.
9. As regards penalty imposed under Section 76, 77 and 78 it was submitted by the learned Chartered Accountant that penalties cannot be imposed simultaneously under Sections 76 and 78. We find that the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty under Section 76 up to May 2008and for the subsequent period he has not imposed any penalty under Section 76 but under Section 78. In view of this position, this argument also fails.
10. In sum, we hold that the appellant has no merits and the appeal is rejected by upholding the impugned order in toto.
(Pronounced in Court) (Devender Singh) Member (Technical) (M V Ravindran) Member (Judicial) */as 6 5