9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the actual value of taxable services received and thereby short-paid the service tax. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 73,120 and Education Cess of Rs. 490 along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 100 per day under section 76, Rs. 1,000 under section 77 and Rs. 73,120 under section 78 of the Finance Act. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) after going through the relevant legal provisions and also the facts of the case held that the appellant cannot separate their receipt into taxable and non-taxable category. However he remanded the matter for recalculation of the tax liability as the appellants were justified in claiming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering the cable operator services. It is seen that the appellants contend that the Pay Channel Broadcasts were not taxable upto 16-6-2005 and therefore, the amount received by them towards pay channel broadcast during relevant period of dispute is not taxable. For this, they are relying on the circular which is mentioned supra. 6. On a very careful consideration of the entire issue, we find that the clarification referred to by the learned advocate is only in respect of the broadcasting services. The gist of the clarification is as follows: 6.1 The broadcasting services were taxable even prior to 2005. However, before 2005 the scope of broadcasting services was limited to include only the amount collected by the broadcaster from clients w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rendered by the appellant are taxable even with effect from 2002. It is not legally permissible to split up or bifurcate the figures and to pay service tax only on one portion of that amount. This point has been clearly examined by the lower authority. In these circumstances, the liability of the service of the appellant is established. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the lower authority. However, as the appellant was under a bona fide belief that he was not required to pay service tax on the amount collected towards pay channels, the penalties imposed are not warranted. The amount of tax has to be recalculated in terms of the Commissioner (Appeals) order and all penalties are set aside. However, the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
