9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Ms. G. Vardhini Karthik, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in providing Telecommunication Service. Pursuant to audit, it emerged that the appellants were providing Interconnectivity Usage Charges (IUC) service to various telecommunication service providers viz. Airtel, Vod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d demand along with interest and also imposed equal penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence this appeal. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Ms. G. Vardhini Karthik made a number of submissions which can be summarized as under:- 2.1 The show cause notice while proposing the demand of service tax has not indicated as to the categ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the telecommunication service. She submits that the very same clarification would be applicable even in respect of IUC charges. 2.3 Ld. counsel also draws our attention to yet another circular F.No. 137212011-Service Tax dated 15.7.2011 on the issue of taxability in respect of International Private Leased Circuits charges, where it has been reiterated that when the service provider is located ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is well settled that lack of such clarity in the show cause notice and omission to indicate the specific category of service under which the tax is proposed to be demanded will vitiate the proceedings ab initio. 5.1 Be that as it may, we find that the circulars dated 15.7.2011 and 19.12.2011 are very much applicable pari materia to IUC charges paid by the appellant to Sri Lanka Telecom. It is als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
