9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocess of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and penalties, which was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellants, the learned Consultant Shri M. Saravanan appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the appellants were receiving signals from M/s. SCV, a Multi system Operator (MSO) and distributed to the customers. The Board vide its Circular dated 01.08.2002 had clarified that only for the services provided to the ultimate customers the levy of service tax would be attracted. The appellants were providing only very few connections to the customers directly, and were providing to sub-operators, who in turn distributed to the ultimate customers. The definition in sub-clau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (14) S.T.R.360 (Tri.-Bang.); and (ii) M/s. Hathway Software Development Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore reported in 2007 (5) S.T.R.42 (Tri.-Bang.). The above decisions would show that MSO was brought under service tax net only from 10.09.2004. So, the appellants cannot be burdened with tax liability for such period when it is providing signals to sub-operators. All these facts lack clarity in the show-cause notice. He prayed to set aside the impugned order. 3. The learned Authorised Representative Shri S. Govindarajan supported the findings in the impugned order. He adverted to the enquiries conducted by department with M/s.SCV, who were giving the link for transmission to the appellants. The proprietor has admitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee is liable to pay service tax. It is seen that appellant had taken registration and thereafter not paid service tax except for the amount of Rs. 2,380/-. The department has quantified the demand basing upon the estimation given by the M/s. SCV, who were providing link/signals to the appellants. There is no document to support such quantification of demand. The appellant also failed to maintain proper accounts. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we are of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the demand confirmed or interest thereon. However, taking note that there was a Board Circular dt.1.8.2002 which clarified that when MSO receives signals they first transmit signals to the cable operator who in turn ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
