TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1014
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion agreements on yearly basis: i) M/s ESPN Soft Ware Company which provides ESPN and Star Sports Channels ii) Starden India Pvt Ltd., which provides all the star channel iii) M/s Zee Turner India Pvt Ltd., which provides ZEE group channels iv) Maa Television Network, which provides Maa TV v) M/s Ushodaya Enterprises, which provides ETV channels vi) M/s Channel Plus, Chennai, which provides Sun and Gemini channels vii) M/s Sony Television Net Work, which provides Sony group of channels Basing on the number of Sub-connections, the appellants used to make payment to the various channels by way of issuing Demand Drafts. The Channels collect service tax from the appellants. They have got Centralised Service Tax Registration and they pay the service tax to the Central Government. The Appellants obtained Service Tax Registration during December, 2005 and paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on the same day towards service tax. Later on, they paid service tax of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. Further, payment of service tax could not be made by them for the reason that the cable operators did not pay them the service tax and they had to fight a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om 10.09.2004. In addition, the appellant was providing "Sale of Space or Time for display of Advertisements" as defined in Section 65(105)(zzzm) with effect from 01.05.2006. The appellant had entered into agreements with TV Channels/Broadcasters such as Zee TV, Star TV, ESPN, Sony, etc., for granting broadcasting rights in its area on payment of subscription based on the estimated number of TV Connections through the Cable Operators to the Consumers. The TV Channels/Broadcasters provide Decoders to the MSO for the opted channels for receiving encrypted signals. The receipt of encrypted programs from the broadcasters is the "input service" which is used to provide the "output service" of decoded TV programs to the Cable Operators who in turn supply TV signals to their subscribers. The Cable Operators pay monthly subscription to the appellant (MSO) based on the number of cable connections they have provided to their consumers. The Appellant (MSO) thus receives "input service" in the form of encrypted programs from the TV Channels and provide taxable "output service" of decoded TV Channel Programs to the Cable TV Operators. The subscription amounts collected/received from the Cable T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 67. Valuation of taxable services for charging service tax. "For the purposes of this Chapter, the value of any taxable service shall be the gross amount charged by the service provider for such provided or to be provided by him." ......... Section 67 as substituted with effect from 18.04.2006: 67. Valuation of taxable services for charging service tax.- "(1) subject to the provisions of this Chapter, where service tax is chargeable on any taxable service with reference to its value, then such value shall, (i) in a case where the provision of service is for a consideration in money, be the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him; (ii) in a case where the provision of service is for a consideration not wholly or partly consisting of money, be such amount in money as, with the addition of service tax charged, is equivalent to the consideration; (iii) in a case where the provision of service is for a consideration which is not ascertainable, be the amount as may be determined in the prescribed manner. ....... " "Rule 6. Payment of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst the number shown by them in their statement for October, 2008 and the number of subscribers and thereby, the amounts received by them, towards providing the cable operator service were under-stated/under-invoices. It further appeared that the agreements entered with the regional channels reflect the true and correct no. of connections subscribed and served by M/s SCVCN. Therefore, the no. of connections subscribed to the widely viewed, common and compulsory regional Telugu Channel i.e., Gemini TV for all cable operators and other group channels appeared to be correct and true. The number of connections arrived at as per the agreements between 'Gemini' group and SCV cable net appears to reflect the true reality and factual position and it gave the correct no. of connections. Further, the rates given by M/s Star Sat Cable Net, vide their letter dt.12.01.2009 appeared to be correct amounts charged for each connection was also corroborated by the receipts furnished by the other cable operators as detailed above. 23. Moreover, the payments were made by M/s SCVCN for the above, number of connections during the above period mentioned against each entry in the above table. F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....promise dated 27.11.2010 between parties. The parties agreed to settle on 50% share for each in the business of Cable TV operations. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by order dated 07.12.2010 has recorded the Compromise Decree. During the period of September 2004 to December 2008 Mr. RVR Chowdary, Managing Director of M/s In CableNet Tirupati Pvt Ltd., started his own cable operations under the name of M/s In Cable Net Tirupati Pvt Ltd., and Mr. SCV Dilip Kumar started operating under the name of M/s SCV Cable Net, Tirupati. Due to dispute of the ownership, the pending amount collected from the cable operators could not be deposited in the official bank account of SCV Cable Net. The amount collected by swearer for the purpose of SCV Cable Net was disclosed in his book and Income Tax return as per details below: Financial Year ending Income from MSO Operations 31.03.2005 1,08,27,032 31.03.2006 1,11,23,163,65 31.03.2007 1,88,97,196 31.03.2008 2,07,06,078 Accordingly, computed service tax leviable on the basis of income from the business of MSO and submitted it to the service tax authorities and also shown the amount of Cenvat Credit eligible o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pports Revenue, since after inquiry, Authorities found out what is the actual gross amount as income then charged accordingly. Details furnished by appellant has not found correct on the enquiry. Learned Counsel has also relied on the judgment in the case of Reetika Cable Vs CCGST, Chandigarh, supra, wherein it was held as follows: "6. ...... in terms of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the gross value of subscription received by them. The said view having the support of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd (supra) ...." Therefore, finding given in the above case is also not applicable to the present case. In the case of West Coast Paper Mills Vs CCE & ST, Mangalore, relied upon by the appellant, no any allegation that such consideration has been specified under-stated. Whereas, in the instant case, income shown by the appellant has not been found correct and reliable. So, this finding also not applicable in the instant case. 17. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that Learned Commissioner had denied the Cenvat Credit on the ground that appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven by the appellants are not believable in comparison to department inquiry. Therefore, appellants are not entitled for benefit of cum-tax. 21. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the Central Excise Officer visited the premises of the appellant on 31.03.2005, registered offence case POR No.11/2004-05 after verification of records, as stated in show cause notice. Thereafter, Department issued summons and recorded the statement on 12.08.2008. The facts and issues were in the knowledge of Department from 31.03.2005 onward. When the facts are in the knowledge of the Department, there is no case of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or intention to evade payment of tax on the part of the appellant. The appellant has further explained that there were differences with the partner and ownership litigation before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter was ultimately settled on 07.12.2010. The appellant has suffered financially, the extra-ordinary circumstances in which the MSO service was provided during the period may be taken into consideration there was also confusion in the industry as to whether the MSO was liable to pay service tax fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s failed to produce and provide the requisite information/particulars/details, even while giving statement under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944/Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. M/s SCVCN and its Proprietor Shri M/s SCV Dilip Kumar and its CEO Shri N. Koundinya have failed to produce and provide the requisite information/particulars/details and also failed to respond to the summons and these acts and conduct of M/s SCVCN, it's Proprietor and CEO has seriously hampered the enquiry/investigation. Even on his last appearance on 19.01.2009, Shri N. Koundinya had not produced the details/documents and on the other hand, even in his last appearance on 19.01.2009 he had tried to obstruct the investigation. It was evident from the aforesaid acts and attitude of M/s SCVCN its Proprietor Shri Dileep Kumar and its CEO Shri Koundinya that they had not cooperated with the Officers of the Department in the instant investigation/enquiry and as such the nominal and little information provided by them which appeared to be incomplete and incorrect. This aspect has further been strengthened by the fact that, though the copies of the agreements with channel providers were expected to be....