TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. S. L. PEERAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND T. K. JAYARAMAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER ORDER [T. K. Jayaraman, Technical Member.] -1. This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 70/2007-CE, dated 26-2-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore. 2. The appellants were rendering taxable services under the category cable operator". Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that they had suppressed 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... providing signals have been made liable to service tax. In the present case, the period involved is from 16-8-2002 to 31-3-2005. Therefore, he said that the appellants are not liable to pay service tax. 5. On the other hand, the learned departmental representative pointed out that the appellants are basically cable operators and in terms of the legal provisions they are required to discharge service tax on the gross receipt which is received by them for rendering 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 rely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smits or retransmits the same to the customers or his clients. Therefore, the clarification referred to by the appellant is not at all relevant. The appellant is a service provider as cable operators and whatever gross amount he collects from his clients is liable to pay service tax. There is no legal sanction for splitting the amount collected from the subscriber in the form of a taxable amount towards taxable service and non-taxable service. In other words the services 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 circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
