Assessable value, exemption threshold and service tax credit depend on contemporaneous evidence and compliance with due dates.

Contemporaneous statements and the assessee's own admission supported the finding that M.S.O. operations had commenced during the relevant period, so the related addition to assessable value was sustained. Exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 was unavailable because the turnover exceeded the prescribed limit, and the threshold condition for relief was not met. The security deposit figure was found to be Rs. 1 lakh on the evidence, making the contrary figure unsupported. Credit of service tax paid was allowed on proof of payment, while penalty for failure to pay by the due date was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amount added to the assessable value for the relevant year was rightly included on the basis of evidence showing commencement of M.S.O. operations. (ii) Whether exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 was available when the turnover exceeded the prescribed limit. (iii) Whether the Revenue was right in challenging the finding regarding the amount of security deposit. (iv) Whether credit of service tax paid was correctly allowed and penalty was rightly imposed for non-payment on the due date.

Issue (i): Whether the amount added to the assessable value for the relevant year was rightly included on the basis of evidence showing commencement of M.S.O. operations.

Analysis: The record contained statements from cable operators indicating that the appellant had started M.S.O. operations during the relevant period, and the appellant's own admission also supported commencement of such operations in that year. The addition was therefore supported by the material on record.

Conclusion: The inclusion in the assessable value was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 was available when the turnover exceeded the prescribed limit.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption only where the service provider's turnover was below the specified monetary threshold. On the facts found by the appellate authority, the appellant's turnover exceeded that limit, so the condition for exemption was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Revenue was right in challenging the finding regarding the amount of security deposit.

Analysis: The evidence on record showed the security deposit to be Rs. 1 lakh, and the contrary finding of Rs. 50,000/- was unsupported by evidence. The Revenue's challenge on this point was therefore justified.

Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal on the security-deposit issue was allowed.

Issue (iv): Whether credit of service tax paid was correctly allowed and penalty was rightly imposed for non-payment on the due date.

Analysis: The appellant produced evidence of payment of service tax, justifying allowance of credit on that account. At the same time, the failure to pay service tax by the due date attracted penalty, and the imposition of penalty was sustained.

Conclusion: The allowance of credit was upheld, and the penalty was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The order resulted in mixed relief, with the assessee succeeding on the credit issue while the Revenue succeeded on the security-deposit issue, and the remaining demands and penalty being sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Findings on tax liability and exemption are to be sustained where supported by contemporaneous evidence and where the statutory or notified threshold condition for relief is not satisfied.

---