Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
) M.Vetri Selvan vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 25 March, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal Nos.ST/84/09, ST/85/09, ST/86/09,
ST/157/09 & ST/318/09
[Arising out of Order-in-Revision No.11/2008 ST (R) dated 16.12.2008, O-I-R No.9/2008 ST (R) dt. 28.11.2008, O-I-R No.12/2008 ST (R) dt. 16.12.2008, O-I-R No.10/2008 ST (R) dt. 16.12.2008 and O-I-R No.1/2009 ST (R) dt. 17.3.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
1) M.Vetri Selvan
2) Jizan Cables
3) M.A.Rasheed
4) O.V.K.Baskaran
5) S.Suyumburaja
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri M.Kannan, Advocate Shri C.Rangaraju, SDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 25.3.2010 Date of decision : 25.3.2010 Final Order No.____________ All the above appeals involve a common issue namely as to amount of service tax required to be paid by the appellants herein who are individual cable operators and hence are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. I have heard both sides on the enhancement of service tax liability on each assessee by the Commissioner in his Order-in-Revision. He has held that each of the individual cable operators had 350 cable connections and collected Rs.200/- per month per connection from the subscribers during the material period, evading service tax liability. The reliance has been placed on a register seized from Madurai Cable TV Communication (MCTC) to hold that each individual cable operator had 350 connections. Author of this register is one Ramesh who has deposed that the register contained details as to number of KTV connections held by each individual cable TV operator. He has also deposed that Rs.20/- is the payment made for each KTV connection to them (MCTC). The Commissioner has, however, relied upon the statement of Ramesh and his brother Shri Vijayakumar to hold that payment for each Sumangali Cable Vision connection was Rs.172/- and, therefore, each individual cable operator had collected Rs.200/- (Rs.20 + Rs.172 + Rs.8) per connection from the customers. There is no basis for the Commissioner to come to the conclusion that Rs.200/- had been collected per connection for the reason that each individual cable operator who was given KTV connection alone was shown in the relied upon register and amount paid for each KTV connection was only Rs.20/-. The Commissioner, therefore, has erred in holding that Rs.200/- had been collected per connection by each individual cable operator. Shri Vetriselvan had 350 KTV connections; M/s.Jizan Cables had 225 KTV connections; Shri M.A.Rasheed had 335 KTV connections; Shri Baskaran had 75 KTV connections and Shri Suyumburaja had 375 KTV connections. Each individual cable operator is stated to have paid Rs.20/- per KTV connection. Therefore, the Commissioner has erred in holding that each individual cable operator had paid Rs.200/- per connection. The adjudicating authority has rightly accepted the contention of the assessees that they had paid at the rate of Rs.20/- per KTV connection. Therefore, the enhancement done by the Commissioner in revision to the rate of Rs.200/- per connection is not sustainable. I, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT gs Encl : Chart Appeal No./Appellant Period of Dispute No. of Connections as per Register No.1 [KTV] Service Tax & Penalty confirmed in Order-in-Original Service Tax & Penalty confirmed in Order-in-Revision ST/84/09 M.Vetriselvan 8/02 to 12/05 350 Order-in-Original No.33/2006-07 dt. 30.3.07 Service Tax Rs.3200/- + Interest No Penalty.
Order-in-Revision No.11/08 ST [R] dt. 16.12.08 ST Rs.2,32,140/-+ Interest Penalty u/s 78 Rs.2,32,140/-
ST/85/09 Jizan Cables 7/03 to 12/05 225 Order-in-Original No.9/07 ST dt. 28.5.07 Service Tax Rs.8291/- + Interest Penalty u/s 78 Rs.5359/- Benefit of exemption under Service Tax Notification 6/2005 dt. 1.3.2005 Allowed Order-in-Revision No.9/08 ST [R] dt. 28.11.08 ST Rs.1,15,549/- + Interest Penalty u/s 78 Rs.1,15,549/-
ST/86/09 M.A.Rasheed 11/03 to 12/05 335 Order-in-Original No.10/07 ST dt. 4.6.07 Service Tax Rs.7,373/- + Interest Penalty u/s Sec.78 Rs.4373/- Benefit of Exemption under service tax Notification 6/2005 dt. 1.3.2005 Allowed Order-in-Revision No.12/08 ST [R] dt. 16.12.08 ST Rs.1,55,571/- + Interest Penalty u/s 78 Rs.1,55,571/-
ST/157/09 O.V.K.Baskaran 4/03 to 3/05 75 Order-in-Original No.11/07 ST dt. 4.6.07 Service Tax Rs.4970/- + Interest Penalty u/s 78 Rs.4970/-
Order-in-Revision No.10/08 ST [R] dt. 16.12.08 ST Rs.25,690/- + Interest Penalty u/s 78 Rs.25,690/-
ST/318/09 S.Suyumburaja 8/02 to 12/05 375 Order-in-Original No.32/2006-07dt. 30.3.07 Service Tax Rs.7845/- + Interest Penalty u/s 2217/-
Benefit of Exemption under Service Tax Notification 6/2005 dt. 1.3.2005 Allowed.
Order-in-Revision No.1/09 ST [R] dt. 17.3.09 ST Rs.2,44,305/- + Interest Penalty u/s 78 Rs.2,44,305/-
2