TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 1189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... infrastructure for transmission of power. The Appellant is a holder of Infrastructure Provider Category-II license under first proviso to Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Appellants leased out bandwidth available on this network for transmission of telecommunication signal to various customers including M/s Bharati Infotel Ltd., M/s Convergys, M/s Data Access India Ltd. and Daksh e Services Pvt. Ltd. The case of the Revenue is that this service of leasing of telecommunication network provided by the Appellants is taxable service in terms of clause (zd) of sub-section (105) of Section 65 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. Under this provision of the said Act the taxable service is any,- "service provided to a "su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pointed out that w.e.f. 1.6.2007 new definition of "telecommunication service" was inserted by Finance Act, 2008. Under this definition service provided by means of any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images and sounds or intelligence or information of any nature, by wire, radio, optical, visual or other electro-magnetic means or systems, including the related transfer or assignment of the right to use capacity for such transmission, emission or reception by a person who has been granted a license under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 has been brought to levy of tax. Contention is that only w.e.f. 1.6.2007 service provided by the Appellants comes under the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to evade payment of duty. So long as there was no such intention they argue that the extended period of five years cannot be invoked. 8. They further submit that even if they are liable to tax, the tax calculation made in the order-in-original is incorrect in as much as the remuneration received by them is cum-tax and the tax liability is not worked out following the principle laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Sri Chakra Tyres reported in 1999 (108) ELT 361 and affirmed by the Apex Court in CCE vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd in 2002 (4) RLT 1 SC 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand submits that the definition for leased circuit that was in force during the relevant period as reproduced in para 5 above covers the service provided by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of includes-part. No such ruling by any Court is quoted. The adjudicating authority has conceived a definition for motor cycle as per his imagination to argue out his point. The definition conceived is as under: motor cycle means a road vehicle with two wheels driven by an engine, with one seat for the driver and space for a passenger behind him and includes a bicycle with a motor wheel attachment 11. We respectfully disagree with this argument. First of all the definition of motor cycle conceived by him is not from any statute book or not even from any eminent legal authority. If there is a legal intent to cover bicycle with a motor wheel attachment it will be covered as a separate part in the definition and not by an includes-....