9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NL) holds service tax registration under the category of 'telecom service' as defined under section 65 (105) (zzzx) of the Finance Act, 1994. M/s.BSNL provides the telecom service to the subscribers/customers who have obtained telephone connection from them and also to the pubic customers/callers by an arrangement of Public Call Office (PCO). These PCOs are maintained by a person called PCO operators appointed by BSNL for this purpose. 3. Prior to 01.06.2008, the call from PCOs were charged uniformly at the rate of Re.1/- per Metered Call Unit (MCU) i.e. per minute with a 60 seconds pulse. The tariff of Re.1/- per MCU consisted of three components viz. revenue share for the BSNL, commission for the PCO operators and service tax to the Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended to PCO operators. The non-inclusion of amount of discount given to PCO operators in the taxable value, for the purpose of payment of service tax resulted in short payment of service tax by BSNL. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued for the different periods between 01.06.2008 to 31.03.2011 demanding the service tax along with the interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalty. Aggrieved by such orders, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel Ms. G. Vardini Karthik appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the BSNL is a Government of India undertaking and has been paying the service tax on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct only on 1.3.2011 the demand for the period prior to 01.03.2011 cannot sustain. The amendment is by way of clarification and the same has to be considered to have prospective application only as laid in the decision of UOI Vs Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd. - 2009 (14) ELT 597 (SC). It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the Tribunal in the said decision had relied on the earlier decision in the appellant's own case as reported in 2014-TIO-3033-CESTAT-Bang. and the case of Bharti Infotel Ltd. Vs CCE Bhopal - 2006 (1) STR 107 (Tri.-Del.). Ld. Counsel prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 7. Ld. A.R Sri N. Sathya Narayanan supported the findings in the impugned order. It is submitted that the claim of the appellant that prior to 01.06.2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be provided to any person, by the telegraph authority in relation to telecommunication service. After 1-6-2007, the words "services provided to a subscriber" has been substituted by the words "to any person". The Notification No. 2/2011-S.T., dated 1-3-2011 has inserted an Explanation in Rule 5, clause (1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The said Explanation is as under : "3. In the said rules, in Rule 5, after sub-rule (1), the following 'Explanation' shall be inserted, with effect from the 1st day of March, 2011 namely : "Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the services specified in sub-clause (zzzx) of clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, the value of the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
