2018 (11) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was noticed that BSNL did not fully discharge the due service tax in the following cases: i) BSNL collects security deposit from its customers and adjusts the security deposit against the pending bills of their customers. At the time of surrender of the telephone connection, only the remaining amount is refunded to the customers. The department was of the view that the amount of unpaid bill adjusted from the security deposit is liable to payment of service tax. ii) BSNL had allowed several Public Call Offices (PCO) to be operated. At the time of settlement of bills in respect of these PCOs, certain commission amounts were allowed to be deducted from the total bill. Department was of the view that the service tax on such amount of com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vice tax confirmed has been challenged on the following grounds: i) It cannot be alleged that BSNL has suppressed the facts, since the entire proceedings were based on statutorily maintained records which remained open for scrutiny of the proper officer at all material times. Further, the revenue has not brought on record any positive act of suppression of material fact. Consequently the demand raised is to be considered as hit by time-bar. ii) In respect of demand which survives, if any, after the benefit of time bar is extended, the cum tax value benefit is to be extended to them. iii) In respect of interest on delayed payment, he submitted that the department has not provided the details of the service tax paid with delay; as su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sidered as hit by the time bar. We set aside the demand beyond the normal period of limitation. 7. A significant part of the demand raised in the show cause notice has been dropped by the adjudicating authority. This pertains to adjustments made suo moto by BSNL between the excess paid service tax in certain months with the service tax payable in subsequent months. The demand on this ground has been dropped by the adjudicating authority, by taking the view that such adjustments were reflected in their returns and no evasion of service tax can be alleged. The adjudicating authority has further held that there have been no violation of then Rule 6(4)B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. This issue stands challenged by the revenue in the presen....