9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department. The lower appellate authority has upheld the demand against the appellant leading to this appeal before the Tribunal. Shri Sameer Agrawal, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants argues that :- (a) The appellants have provided leased lined service which is taxable only w.e.f. 16.07.01 subsequent to the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2001 being notified. (b) The Tribunal in case of Chennai Telephones (BSNL) v. CCE [2007] 7 STT 52 (Chennai-Cestat) has held that leased circuit to telephone users is different from telephone service and is taxable only w.e.f.16.07.01. (c) The railways and canal authorities have not paid service tax to the appellants for the most part. Some amount which the railway authority have paid as servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppression with intention to evade service tax. He states that accordingly the demand was made u/s 73 and the contention of the Ld. Advocate to the contrary is not correct. He also states that during the course of audit, it was found that the appellants/have provided impugned telephone circuits through ACSR/copper wire which was capable of speech circuit as well as for PBX/PABX use and therefore, the impugned service was taxable as telephone service even prior to a separate entry being carved out for leased line service w.e.f. 16.07.01. 4. After hearing both sides, we find that the telephone service was chargeable to service tax even prior to 16.07.01 and only a separate entry for leased line service has been carved out w.e.f. 16.07.01, fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es provided through ACSR/copper wire provided voice communication, said leased circuits, in our considered view have been rightly held to be covered under the existing entry for telephone service even prior to the period 16.07.01. To that extent the tax demand is justified. The leased line provided through iron wire which is capable of only data communication cannot be brought under the ambit of the entry for telephone service prior to 16.07.01. 6. Ld. Advocate has made a submission that the service recipient has not paid the service tax amount separately. However, the value for the taxable service has been realised and if the contention of the Ld. Advocate regarding non-payment of service tax separately is correct, the appellant will be e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired to be paid where tax is payable without even issue of separate notice for interest. 8. In view of our findings as above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for verifying as to whether the service tax amount has been separately paid by service recipient and for allowing cum tax benefit in such of those cases where no service tax has been separately paid. He will also segregate the amounts relating to leased lines based on iron wire meant for only data circuit and if the demand has been made for such circuits, to reduce the demand to that extent as we have held that provision of these lines purely meant for data circuit . . . are not leviable to service tax prior to 16.07.01. He shall re-quan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
