2012 (7) TMI 505

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er dated 18.10.2011, the Hon'ble Vice President has ordered that 'Duplicate order to be issued.' 1.1 This appeal arose out of the order passed by the learned First Appellate Authority on 16.6.2010 in Order-in- Appeal No. 232(DVK) STD/JPR-I/2010. It was noticed by Revenue that the appellant was providing interconnection, infrastructure and space facility to various Basic Telephone Service Providers (CMPS), and was charging infrastructure charges, port charges, rent for space etc. and was not paying service tax with effect from 1.5.2006, on such charges following Circular No. 46/09/2002 dated 8.8.2002. When the Business Support Service was brought to tax, the appellant was made liable to service tax from that date. The period involved in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of Telecom service only brought the appellant to taxing net. The Chennai Commissionerate by order dated 18.2.2007 has also held that site selling service which is analogous to infrastructure charges is not liable to service tax. Levy of service tax on the appellant amounts to levy of service tax on immovable property and that is illegal. Learned Appellate Authority failed to appreciate what is called 'Business support Service'. For no mala fide intention of the Public Sector appellant, there should not be any penalty. 3. Learned DR on the other hand, supported the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4.1 The reason why the appellant was brought to ambit of tax is clear from ....