Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Vijay Television (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai

2017 (8) TMI 838 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Reverse charge mechanism - It appeared to the department that fee given by appellant to STARL for this purpose was liable to service tax and since STARL did not have office in India, appellant was to discharge tax liability on reverse charge basis - Held that: - the appellant cannot be held as a service recipient since foreign broadcaster is engaged in up-linking signals to a satellite outside India and down-linking of signals is done by MSOs/COs in India and appellant technically does not recei .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dcasting charges from the advertisers and sponsors under Broadcasting service, post-production activities under Video Tape Production services, production of programs under "Programme Producer's Service", "Business Support Service" etc. and are registered with the Service Tax department. Appellant entered into Distribution and Marketing Agreement with STARL, Hongkong with an object of obtaining exclusive rights from STARL to distribute and market its broadcasting channel. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e tax liability of ₹ 1,47,38,429/- with interest thereon for the period 2006-07, along with imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. This demand was confirmed in adjudication vide impugned order dt. 16.12.2008 along with interest. A penalty was imposed under Section 76 of the Act. Hence this appeal. 2. On 11.8.2017, when the matter came up for hearing on behalf of appellant, Ld. Advocate, Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran made oral and written submissions which can be broad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Star Asia Region FZ-LLC (owner of Vijay TV channel) with the help of an up-linking agency to the satellite and signals are down-linked by the MSOs/COs directly. (iii) Appellant does not receive or broadcast signals of the channel. MSO/COs receive signals with the help of activated smart cards through set top box. They pay subscription charges to Star India Pvt. Ltd. Activation of smart cards cannot be done by appellant. Service tax has been paid by appellant in respect of fees collected by them .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

following chart : (vi) For these reasons, Ld. Advocate submits that in the present appeal also, tax liability demanded cannot sustain. 3. On the other hand, Ld.A.R Shri B. Balamurugan supports the adjudication. He further submits that definition of broadcasting agency or organization under Section 65 (16) of the Finance Act, 1994 is very broad and will definitely bring within its ambit the activity of the appellant. He therefore submitted that the demand is legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

India or by any person who acts on its behalf in any manner, engaged in the activity of selling of time slots for broadcasting of any programme or obtaining sponsorships for programme or collecting the broadcasting charges or permitting the rights to receive any form of communication like sign, signal, writing, picture, image and sounds of all kinds by transmission of electro-magnetic waves through space or through cables, direct to home signals or by any other means to cable operator, includin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ut doubt, the definition covers a wide range of services that would be rendered under that head. 5.2 The issue that comes up for appellate decision in this case is whether in the facts of the case, where no broadcasting signals have been uplinked by foreign service provider to the appellant, but instead such signals have been directly sent to the MSOs/COs, whether tax liability can arise for the appellant ? 5.2 Appellants have been given the right to distribute signals of STARL and in turn they .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ite directly from Star Asia Region to the MSOs/COs. The dispute herein is not relating to selling of time slots for broadcasting or obtaining sponsorship programs. The grant of rights by appellant is provided to Star India Pvt. Ltd. However, the transmission of broadcasting signals is done directly from abroad by Star Asia Region FZ-LLC, Dubai to the MSOs/COs. 4. The same issue had been considered by the Tribunal in the case of ESPN Software India (P) Ltd. Vs CST referred to supra. In the said c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version