2018 (11) TMI 1084 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Non-discharge of service tax – demand of service tax has been confirmed by the Commissioner in the revision order merely basing upon the documents recovered from SCV – Held that:- There is no evidence brought out that the appellant has provided services to 550 customers and no investigation has been done at the level of customers’ end. So also there is no document to show that the appellant has received charges for all the connections provided by him.
–
Service tax can be demanded only on a consideration received by the service provider – Since there is no evidence to establish that the appellants have received consideration for all 550 connections, the demand raised by assuming that the appellant has provided 550 connections to various subscribers is without any factual basis.
–
Appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. ST/271/2010 – Final Order No. 42442/2018 – Dated:- 17-9-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ow cause notice. After adjudication, the revision order dated 24.2.2010 was passed by the revisionary authority confirming the demand of balance service tax of ₹ 3,44,248/- and imposed penalty of ₹ 3,66,558/- under section 78 of the Act. Hence the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. The ld. counsel Shri Vadivalagai Nambi appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the demand has been raised without any basis. The appellant was providing cable operator service and the adjudicating authority after analyzing the evidence available had dropped the demand of ₹ 3,44,248/- and had confirmed an amount of ₹ 25,572/- only. The Commissioner in the revision order has relied upon documents seized from SCV to arrive at the total taxable value which is highly erroneous. He submitted that the records received from SCV showed that 550 connections were taken by the appellant and based upon such figures have arrived at the total tax of ₹ 3,44,248/-. Merely by assumin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ade before us as well as the records, we are able to see that the demand of service tax has been confirmed by the Commissioner in the revision order merely basing upon the documents recovered from SCV. In the registers recovered, it was seen that the appellant had taken 550 connections and paid the amount calculated at ₹ 20/- per connection for a month as charges to KTV. Thus department has assumed that the appellants have provided 550 connections of KTV, a pay channel to various subscribers. There is no evidence brought out that the appellant has provided services to 550 customers and no investigation has been done at the level of customers end. So also there is no document to show that the appellant has received charges for all the connections provided by him. Service tax can be demanded only on a consideration received by the service provider. Since there is no evidence to establish that the appellants have received consideration for all 550 connections, we are of the view tha
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =