TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- on Cable Operator Services provided by the Appellant are allegedly taxable as the Basic Exemption Notification is not applicable on account of the fact that the service was provided under a brand name of another person. 2. Demand of tax of Rs.33,00,607/- on Works Contract Services provided by the Appellant based on the information from Form-26AS Statement. Reply dated 15.07.2019 was filed in response to the SCN. The present proceedings were initiated vide an enquiry based upon third party information. Vide the Order-in-Original dated 28.03.2024 following order was passed:- "ORDER (i) I confirm the demand of Rs.10,21,571/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs Twenty-One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-One only) under the provisions of Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. (ii) I confirm the demand and recovery of interest from the party at the appropriate rate for the relevant period till the payment of Service Tax demanded at (i) above, including all Cesses on the said amount of Service Tax under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. (iii) I further impose a penalty of Rs.10,21,571/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs Twenty-One Thousand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7,500 TOTAL 3,41,068 6. It is the case of the Appellant that the aggregate value is less than Rs.10 lakhs and hence eligible for basic exemption. The Appellant was issued invoices for receiving cable network transmission from DEN and such transmission was then provided by the Appellant to various customers. The Appellant duly paid service tax on such invoices to DEN. Hence, as per Rule 2(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules [CCR, 2004] 2004, the services received from DEN were an input service used for providing an output service i.e. cable operator services. Furthermore, the Appellant has already enclosed all the relevant invoices issued by DEN as 'Annexure-6' of Appeal Paper Book based on which the concerned CENVAT credit is being taken in accordance with Rule 9 of the CCR, 2004. Thus, the major conditions for availing of CENVAT credit have been fulfilled by the Appellant. It is to be noted that the Appellant was under a bona fide belief that service tax is not payable on cable operator services and hence, had not availed credit on time or filled ST-3 returns. However, on intimation of taxability of such service by the Department in the SCN, the Appellant had re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n part of the Appellant. The Appellant had not misstated or suppressed facts in any manner and all the transactions are duly recorded in the Books of Accounts thereby showing complete transparency on the part of the Appellant. The Appellant has acted throughout in a bona fide manner and was under a bona fide belief that service tax was not applicable in the present case. Hence, the present issue relates to interpretation of complex legal provisions rather than intent to evade tax. Thus, the invocation of extended limitation period in the impugned order is unwarranted. 8. It appears that the scope of activities undertaken by the Appellant is not falling under generally understood activities of cable operator who is involved in distribution of television signals to various clients. Admittedly, the television signals received from satellite is managed and handled through various layers of persons/activities till it reaches the ultimate customer. The Appellant's role is as an intermediatory and apparently there could be a bona fide belief on their part regarding the tax liability under the said category. As already noted that they are not acting as a local cable TV operator in trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 [Tri.-Del.] b. Shri Balaji Industrial Products Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Cus. & C. Ex., Jaipur- 2019 [370] E.L.T.280[Tri.-Del.] c. Antares Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh - 2024[388] E.L.T.200[Tri.-chan.] d. Balajee Machinery Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Patna-II- e. Maa Kalika Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex., Rourkela. -2023[79] G.S.T.L. 263[Tri. Kolkata] f. Om Sai Professional Det. & Security Ser. P. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Guntur-2008(10) S.T.R.59[Tri.-Bang.] 8. In Central Sales Tax, New Delhi versus Kamal Lalwani (supra), it has been categorically observed that all the activities undertaken by the appellant were a part of the reflection made in the balance sheet and income tax returns in which case no suppression or malafide can be attributed to the assessee. Revenue has not been able to produce any evidence on record to show that tax, which, according to the Revenue was payable, was not being paid on account of any malafide. Hence the extended period would not be available to the Revenue. Similarly in Shri Balaji Industrial Products Ltd (supra) the Tribunal noticed that admittedly, t....