Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

UCN Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Nagpur

2016 (9) TMI 188 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Evasion of service tax business auxiliary services broadcasting services - multi system operator - cable operator services erection, installation and commissioning advertisement and channel promotion receipts - Demand of service tax on set top boxes Held that: - the amount is charged as lease rentals from the customers and the same is received by the appellant. Set top boxes are integral part of the services provided by the appellant as the same enhanced the receipt of the signals by t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ction 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 Held that: - penalties cannot be imposed simultaneously under Sections 76 and 78. Here, penalty is imposed under Section 76 up to May 2008 and for the subsequent period he has not imposed any penalty under Section 76 but under Section 78 penalty rightly imposed. - Appeal rejected decided against appellant. - ST/390/2012 - A/89071/16/STB - Dated:- 14-7-2016 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Shri Devender Singh, Member (Technical) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

period 2007-08 to 2010-11 the appellant was providing the services of cable operator and were registered with the authorities for rendering of such services, business auxiliary services and broadcasting services . It was noticed that the appellant had received various amounts for providing the services and recorded the same in the balance sheet and did not discharge service tax liability on them. Show cause notice was issued which was contested by the appellant. The adjudicating authority after .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s his submission that the appellant being a MSO, the activity of receiving signals from broadcaster and re-transmitting the same would fall under the cable operator service and it can be done even without the set top box. It is his submission that the service tax confirmed on cable laying charges under erection, commissioning and installation service is also incorrect as also taxing the customers would fall under the category of cable operator service . 6. Learned AR would take us through the re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppellant is liable for interest and penalties under various section. We find that the adjudicating authority has recorded detailed findings on each and every issue separately and serially. 7.1. We find that, as regards, the tax liability on set top boxes, it is recorded that the appellant is charging rentals for set-top boxes from their customers and the said amount as recovered is shown in their books of accounts as lease/rental. It has been held correctly by the adjudicating authority that set .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version