Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Extended limitation period cannot be invoked based on subsequent judgment, demand restricted to normal period</h1> <h3>M/s Sana Cable Network, M/s Ganesh Communication, M/s Gunja Cable, M/s Mahak Communication, M/s World Vision, M/s New Friends Cable Network, M/s Ismeet Multi Channel, M/s Maa Vaishno Cable Network, M/s Hari Cable Network, M/s RR Multichannel, M/s Keshav Cable Network Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad</h3> CESTAT Allahabad ruled in favor of appellant on multiple service tax issues. The tribunal held that extended period of limitation could not be invoked as ... Recovery of service tax with interest and penalty - benefit of threshold exemption and cum tax benefit - branded service to the subscribers or not - extended period of limitation - Admissibility of Cenvat credit. Recovery of service tax with interest and penalty - benefit of threshold exemption and cum tax benefit - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is settled principal in law that a subsequent judgment cannot be a basis for making the demand by invoking extended period. In this decision Tribunal has concluded that extended period of limitation would not be available for making this demand. Accordingly, the extended period of limitation would not be available for making this demand and the demand should be restricted to normal period of limitation. Admissibility of Cenvat credit - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to disagree with the findings recorded in the impugned order. The credit have to be allowed strictly as per the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules and appellant should have taken the credit within one year from the date of submission of document against which credit has been taken. In the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. [2000 (7) TMI 108 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] referred by Authorised Representative appearing for revenue, Tribunal have upheld the denial of credit taken beyond the period prescribed by Central Excise Rules, 1944 - it is not inclined to allow the benefit of Cenvat credit availed in respect of the documents which admissibly are more than one year beyond one year from the date of issuance of show cause notice which goes contrary to Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in this matter, therefore, penalties imposed under Section 78 is also set aside. Conclusion - i) The appellants are not providing any branded service to the subscribers and are entitled to avail the benefit of exemption Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. ii) Extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in this matter, therefore, penalties imposed under Section 78 are also set aside. iii) The appellants are entitled to avail Cenvat credit of the service tax paid by the MSO, subject to compliance with the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. iv) The demand should be restricted to the normal period of limitation. Matters are remanded back to the Original Authority for re-quantification - Appeals are partly allowed and matter remanded to original authority for re-quantification of demand. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include:1. Whether the appellants, as cable operators, were liable to pay service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, for the period between 2013-14 and 2017-18.2. Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, and whether they were providing a 'branded service' that would exclude them from this exemption.3. Whether the extended period of limitation for demanding service tax was justifiably invoked.4. Whether the appellants were entitled to Cenvat credit for service tax paid by the Multi-System Operator (MSO).5. Whether penalties imposed under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994, were justified.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Liability to Pay Service TaxThe relevant legal framework includes the Finance Act, 1994, which imposes service tax on cable operators. The Court interpreted the definitions under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, to determine that the appellants, as local cable operators (LCOs), were liable to pay service tax despite the MSO also paying service tax. The Court held that the service provided by LCOs to their subscribers constituted a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994.The Court rejected the appellants' argument of double taxation, referencing the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in M/s Aameet Puri Vs Union of India, which clarified that service tax is payable by both MSOs and LCOs, with Cenvat credit available to prevent double taxation.2. Exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-STThe Court examined whether the appellants were providing a 'branded service' that would exclude them from the exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-ST. The Court found that the appellants were not providing a branded service, as the transmission of signals from the MSO did not involve any brand name being conveyed to the subscribers. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to the exemption.3. Extended Period of LimitationThe Court considered whether the extended period of limitation was applicable. The Tribunal referred to its decision in M/s Blue Star Communication & others, which concluded that the extended period should not be invoked due to the appellants' bona fide belief that they were not liable for service tax. The Court agreed, finding that there was industry-wide confusion regarding the liability of LCOs versus MSOs, thus restricting the demand to the normal period of limitation.4. Cenvat Credit EntitlementThe Court addressed the appellants' entitlement to Cenvat credit for service tax paid by the MSO. The Tribunal's decision in M/s Blue Star Communication supported the appellants' claim, allowing Cenvat credit for service tax paid on input services from the MSO. However, the Court emphasized compliance with the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, requiring credit to be taken within one year of the invoice date.5. Imposition of PenaltiesThe penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, were scrutinized. The Court found the imposition of penalties under Section 78 unjustified due to the lack of willful suppression of facts by the appellants, aligning with the Tribunal's stance in the Blue Star case. However, penalties for procedural lapses, such as failure to register and file returns, were upheld.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court preserved the following significant holdings:1. 'The appellants are not providing any branded service to the subscribers and are entitled to avail the benefit of exemption Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.'2. 'Extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in this matter, therefore, penalties imposed under Section 78 are also set aside.'3. 'The appellants are entitled to avail Cenvat credit of the service tax paid by the MSO, subject to compliance with the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.'4. 'The demand should be restricted to the normal period of limitation.'5. 'Matters are remanded back to the Original Authority for re-quantification of demand within the normal period of limitation.'The Tribunal's decision reinforces the principles of tax liability for cable operators, the applicability of exemptions, and the procedural requirements for claiming Cenvat credit. The judgment provides clarity on the interplay between MSOs and LCOs concerning service tax obligations and highlights the importance of adhering to procedural rules to avoid penalties.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found