2018 (3) TMI 501 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal overturns service tax demand on Broadcasting Service, cites channel ownership error.

M/s. Fortune Media Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order confirming the service tax demand under 'Broadcasting Service' due to erroneous observations regarding channel ... Broadcasting Service - demand of service tax - Held that: - appellants were engaged in the uplinking of the video signals relating to lottery draws organized by the Royal Government of Bhutan through earth station physically located in Bhutan. The activity carried out by the appellant was confined to this act of uplinking of signals on the satellite. That no service tax is chargeable to such activities in relation to uplinking of signals. It is deemed fit that the matter be remanded to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue, after giving the appellant an opportunity to produce the documents furnished along with the miscellaneous application - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Confirmation of demand of service tax under 'Broadcasting Service' for the period April 2003 to 17.4.2006.Analysis:The appellant challenged the order confirming the demand of service tax under 'Broadcasting Service' for a specific period. The appellant argued that the demand was based on uplinking charges collected for transmitting content to Bhutan, not ownership of a television channel as wrongly held by the Commissioner. The appellant contended that the ownership allegation was not part of the show cause notice, limiting their ability to refute it during the proceedings. Additional documents were submitted to disprove channel ownership, but the adjudicating authority did not consider them. The appellant's main contention was that the confirmation of tax liability was primarily based on the erroneous observation of channel ownership, which was not substantiated.The respondent, represented by the ld. AR, supported the findings of the impugned order and highlighted the lack of documents submitted by the appellant before the adjudicating authority. The respondent emphasized the need for verification of the additional documents presented by the appellant to ascertain their validity and relevance to the case.After hearing both sides, the Tribunal reviewed the case and the documents submitted. It was noted that the show cause notice focused on taxing uplinking charges for services provided by the appellant in transmitting signals for lottery draws, not on channel ownership. The appellant's agreement with another company for broadcasting content through a television channel was highlighted to counter the ownership claim. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that the ownership issue was not part of the original allegations and decided to remand the case to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration. The appellant was given the opportunity to present the documents submitted in the miscellaneous application to support their position on channel ownership.In conclusion, the impugned order confirming the tax demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for remand to the adjudicating authority. All issues, including the ownership of the television channel, were to be reconsidered in light of the additional documents provided by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough review of the documents and a fair assessment of the ownership issue before making a final decision on the tax liability.