TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o broadcasting, in any manner. In the case in hand, the appellant herein is not rendering any services to individuals who pay for SMS sent by them to telephone service providers - In the case in hand, the television service providers are only scrolling the numbers on which SMS needs to be sent and get paid from telephone services providers. The appellant has a case on limitation also in as much that the audit was conducted by the appellant premises, result was conveyed to the appellant by a letter dated 08.06.2007 indicating this point as one of the objections was raised by the audit party - the show cause notice was issued on 12.12.2008 despite the audit. On limitation also, the appeal succeeds. On merits as well as on limitation, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Finance Act, 1944. Vide the impugned order the lower authority has (i) confirmed the demand of ₹ 1,76,443/- under proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994. (ii) demanded interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. (iii) imposed penalty of ₹ 1,76,443/- under Section 78 ibid, with a provision to reduce the penalty to ₹ 44,111/- (25% of the service tax not paid) in case the service tax along with interest as demanded at sub paras (i) and (ii) above along with the reduced penalty is paid within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. (iii) also imposed penalty of ₹ 1000/- under Section 77 ibid. Aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority, an appeal was preferred before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he other hand draws our attention to the findings of the first appellate authority. It is his submission that the broadcasting services as defined under Finance Act would apply in its full force, in the case in hand. He would submit that the appellant had not produced any documents to show that the telephone company is already discharging the service tax under the category of Telephone services on the gross amounts and nor there is any documents to show the share of the Revenue was net revenue would mean that the amount is shared after the tax liability is paid. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that the facts reproduced herein above are not disputed by both sides. Appellant is earning revenue fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roviders. In the case in hand, the television service providers are only scrolling the numbers on which SMS needs to be sent and get paid from telephone services providers. It is the contention of the appellant that the said amount received by television operators on the charges levied by them to individual subscribers is covered under services of telephone services and appellants are paid only 50% of the net revenue. 6. We find that the appellant has a case on limitation also in as much that the audit was conducted by the appellant premises, result was conveyed to the appellant by a letter dated 08.06.2007 indicating this point as one of the objections was raised by the audit party. We find that the show cause notice was issued on 12.12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
