TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 315
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that they have paid service tax in excess of what was payable on the Pre-paid Mobile Service; that they had obtained the payments in advance by providing Recharge Vouchers (RCVs) to their distributors against payments. The vouchers were sold through Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. (RCIL) for onwards sales to Distributors who in turns sold them to retail customers. The subscribers used these RCVs to obtain value credit for using telephone network of the company and subsequently use the credit to make telephone calls from their telephone instruments. The Appellant had provided these RCVs to distributor at discount on its MRP which was printed on the RCVs whereas service tax was paid on MRP which had resulted in excess payment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to Section 67 of the FA as per which the gross value for the purpose of charging service tax is value of the goods received by the assessee. He also relies upon order of Tribunal in case of BPL Mobile Cellular Vs. CCE, Coimbatore 2007 (8) STR 546 (TRI) on merits. He further submits that the impugned order is legal and has been rightly decided by the lower authorities as filing of appeal before High Court against the order of Tribunal for the previous period cannot cause hindrance for deciding the present. He relies upon various judgments of Hon'ble High Courts and Apex Court in this regard. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that the period involved in the appeals is June' 2006 to Oct'2006 when Section 67 wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rial time, the value of taxable service was the gross amount charged by the service-provider for such service. The assessee paid tax on such value and nothing more is liable to be paid. Ld. Consultant, in this connection, relies on the Tribunal's decision in Tempest Advertising (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad [2007 (5) S.T.R. 312 (Tri. - Bang.)], wherein it was held that the actual amount received by the service provider for the service rendered to his customer would alone constitute the value of taxable service for the purpose of Section 67 and that any amount due from the customer would not be includible in the taxable value. Ld. S.D.R., on the other hand, reiterates the findings contained in para 4.3 of the impugned order. 5. After giving ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... clear that the issue involved in the present appeal already stands decided in favour of Respondent. 7. The revenue has also taken a ground that the issue under dispute was decided in favour of the Respondent by CESTAT, Mumbai 2008 (11) STR 258 (TRI) and the department's appeal has been admitted by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court and hence the correctness of the order of CESTAT is in jeopardy in terms of Supreme Court decision in case of Supreme Court judgment in UOI Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. 2014 (164) ELT 375. That the Tribunal's order does not have precedent value. In this context we find that the order of Apex Court is in different context and hence not applicable in the present facts. Further the doctrine of merger is not applicab....