Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"4.10 In view of the above, I modify the impugned Order dated 31.07.2020, as under:-

(i) Confirmation of demand of Service Tax (including Cesses) is reduced to Rs.5,78,010/ alongwith interest,

(ii) Penalty imposed upon the appellant, under Section 78 of the Act, is reduced to Ra 5,78,010/-; and

(iii) Penalty imposed under Sections 77(1)(a), 77(1)(b), 77(1)(c) & 77(2) of the Act, shall remain unchanged."

Service Tax Appeal No.70622 of 2021 2.1 On the basis of specific intelligence that appellant was providing Cable Operator Services taxable under Finance Act, 1994 without obtaining service tax registration and without paying service tax. Inquiry was initiated against them. 2.2 Inquiry and investigations made, revealed that appellant during the period from 2013-14 to 2017-18 (upto June, 2017) did not pay service tax including cess of Rs.10,45,238/-. They were providing taxable services of re-transmission of broadcast television signals received from their multi-system operator (MSO) i.e. M/s DEN Ambey Cable Network Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur (M/s DEN) and the benefit of threshold exemption under Notification No.33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 was not available to them. 2.3 Show cause notice dated 10.04.2019 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why-

d) Whether the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the gross value of the services provided by them or not?

e) Whether the appellants are entitled for cenvat credit of service tax paid by the MSO or not?

12. Whether the appellants are providing branded service or not?

Consequently they are entitled for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 and Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.

In this case, the appellants are cable operator and providing cable services to the subscribers on the basis of signals received from the MSO. The subscriber has not asked for any brand for providing the said services. In fact, the appellant is also not providing any branded service as MSO is supplying signal to the appellants which has been transmitted to the subscribers, in that circumstances, there is no relation of brand name to the ultimate customers. Therefore, we hold that the appellants are not providing any branded service to the subscribers and the said issue has been examined by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of RDB Industries (supra) wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court came to the occasion to examine the issue of brand name and observed as under:-

Admittedly, in this case, the appellants have received subscriptions from the subscribers for providing the Service Tax Appeal No.70622 of 2021 services, on the said amounts, the appellants are liable to pay service tax.

e) Whether the appellants are entitled for cenvat credit of service tax paid by the MSO or not?

We find that the out of the total amount received by the appellants, some amounts of total subscriptions, the appellants are remitting to the MSO on which the MSO is paying service tax, therefore, the signal provided by the MSO to the appellant is an input services for the appellants.

Therefore, the service tax paid by the MSO is available as cenvat credit to the appellants. In these circumstances, we hold that the appellants are entitled to avail cenvat credit of the service tax paid by the MSO.

13. In view of the above, the following order is passed:-

a) the appellants are entitled for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 and Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.