TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Madurai. 2. The tax periods under consideration are from April 2008 to March 2013. The Appellant is the Assessee who, by means of his proprietary concern, was appointed a non-exclusive authorised distributor of Sun Direct TV Pvt. Ltd. ("Sun") under an Agreement. In this capacity, the Appellant received recharge vouchers and electronic recharge vouchers from "Sun" at a discounted price which the Appellant sold to dealers. The Appellant earned a commission on such sales. The Appellant also installed Direct-to-Home (DTH) boxes at the premises of the customers, for which installation a fee was reimbursed to them by "Sun" described as an activation fee. Service Tax was not paid on the commission and the activation fee. 3. The Adjudicating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted the contention of the Appellant that the recharge vouchers having already suffered tax at the hands of "Sun" would save the Appellant from taxation. 5. With respect to the demand for Service Tax on the erection, commissioning and installation services, the Appellant contended that no tax would be payable on that account as he had resorted to the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (VCES). The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this contention for two reasons. First, she held that the balance of tax due under that scheme had not yet been paid by the Appellant. Second, she held that the Appellant did not raise this plea before the Adjudicating Authority, and that it was unclear what prevented him from doing so. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er consideration had already suffered tax in the hands of the service receiver, i.e., "Sun" on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the recharge vouchers. 10. Learned counsel also submits that tax dues have been calculated based on the cum duty value, which will be paid through the VCES. 11. With respect to the invocation of extended period of limitation and the penalty under Section 78, learned Counsel would submit that the Appellant was acting under a bona fide belief that the activities in question did not attract the levy of Service Tax. The Appellant claims that in this belief, he was guided by the statutory provisions. she also submits that the Department had been informed that the Assessee was opting for the VCES. Reliance, in thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration is dated 05.11.2013, the amount already paid is stated to be Rs. 2,47,940/-. 15. After all this, on 26.11.2015, the Appellant addresses a letter to the Commissioner (Appeals) stating that the sum of Rs. 2,47,940/- along with interest thereon has been paid on 24.11.2015. 16. In recording her findings, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the contentions of the Appellant on the basis of VCES could not be accepted as they were not raised before the Adjudicating Authority and because payments under the VCES were not fully discharged. We are of the view that the first of these reasons is incorrect. If the Appellant has resorted to the VCES and his application thereunder has been accepted, the fact that that was not pointed out i....