TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 840
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amounting to Rs. 1,05,64,177, covering the period 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 (up to September 2011), along with interest and penalty, on the income earned under the heads (i). Lease pay holder (ii). Infrastructure provider receipts (iii). Channel placement charges and carriage receipts and Installation charges and repair and maintenance charges; the Show cause Notice also demanded Cenvat credit of Rs. 39,13,281, along with interest and penalty, on the ground that the Appellant did not submit invoices based on which the credit is availed. Commissioner issued the Impugned Order, dated 14.07.2014, confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 76,06,742 along with interest and penalty and dropped demand of service tax of Rs. 29,57,435, on the infrastructure provider receipts on the ground that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for proposing this demand as the department was aware about this transaction while raising the demand for the period 2003-2008 in the earlier proceedings. Hence, this appeal No. ST/55227/2014 2. Ms. Krati Singh, Learned counsel for the appellants, submits that Service tax cannot be charged on lease pay holder receipts under Cable Operator se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cable operator services'; Adjudicating Authority did not consider the submission that the Service tax cannot be charged on channel placement and carriage receipts under Cable Operator services; Channel placement and carriage receipts are pertaining to agreement with the channels for telecasting their channels at the frequencies desired by them which will ensure maximum viewership and reach to the channels by avoiding the terrestrial frequencies; income is not pertaining to telecasting of channels but is in relation to give the maximum reach to these channels; channel placement and carriage receipts are correctly classifiable under Business Auxiliary Services under Section 65(19) read with Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Act as the placement of channels at the desired frequency to ensure the better quality of the channel enhances the channel's viewership; tribunal decision M/S Indusind Media & Communications Ltd 2013 (12) TMI 860 - CESTAT New Delhi, supports this view. 4. Learned Counsel submits also that Service tax cannot be charged on infrastructure provider receipts under telecommunication services as per Section 65(109a) read with Section 65(105)(zzzx) of the Act; telecommunicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause notice dated 13.04.2009, demanding the tax on internet/bandwidth charges and leasing charges for the period 2003-2004 to 2007-2008; department did not raise any dispute regarding non-payment of service tax on transactions other than the transaction of providing the fibre on lease even though the said show cause notice covers the period of 2007-2008 which is also involved in the present SCN; therefore, the Appellant had reasons to believe that the service tax is not payable on other transactions' moreover, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present SCN as the department failed to take cognisance of other issues in the earlier audit and show cause notice as held in International Merchandising Company 2025 (4) TMI 1600 - CESTAT Chandigarh. 6.1. Learned Counsel submits also that the department again conducted the audit of the Appellant in November 2011 pursuant to which the present proceedings are initiated; it is the settled principle that fraud, suppression etc. cannot be alleged on part of the taxpayer for the facts unearthed during the audit conducted in such time frame due to which the income escapes assessment within the normal period of limitation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AT credit. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. Firstly, we would like to address the issue of limitation. In the instant case, show cause notice dated 27.08.2012, covering the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 was issued invoking extended period. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the demand is substantially barred by limitation. The appellant submits that they were under a bona fide belief that service tax is not payable on Lease Pay Holder Receipts, Infrastructure Provider Receipts, Channel Placement & Carriage Receipts and Installation, Repair & Maintenance Charges. It is on record that the issue came to light only on the conduct of audit. However, it is on record that A.G (Audit) have conducted an audit on the appellant's records and consequently a show cause notice dated 13.04.2009 demanding service tax on Internet/ Bandwidth Charges and Leasing Charges was issued covering the period 2003-04 to 2007-08. The year 2007-08 is common to both the show cause notices and in the earlier show cause notice, the present issues were not disputed. We find that Department cannot invoke extended period in the subsequent show cause notices when it failed to take cog....