G.M. Telecom, Bsnl Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

G.M. Telecom, Bsnl vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 23, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/42246

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/42246
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Mar 23, 2006
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

G.M. Telecom, Bsnl

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2006)(113)ECC129

Excerpt

1. heard both sides and perused the records. the impugned order has demanded the' amount of about rs. 5 lakhs from the appellant g.m.telecom, chandigarh on the ground that there was delay in payment of service tax during the period april, 97 to dec, 97 in respect of service tax on telephone services rendered by the appellant. the contention of the appellant was that the procedure for collection of telecom charges as well as deposit of service tax remains stipulated in the circular by the principal chief controller of accounts and the same had been accepted by the central board of excise & customs also. this was the procedure followed till march' 99. the contention of the appellant, therefore, is that there was no delay in making payments, as payments had been made in terms of an agreed accounting procedure. ld.counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on tribunal's final order no. 4/2003-nb(a) dt.2-6-2003 in appeal no. st 25/2002-nb(a) filed by the present appellant.2. the issue raised in this appeal remains covered by our order dt.2-6-2003 in the aforesaid earlier appeal. since the service tax was being paid in terms of agreed accounting procedure, the finding of the commissioner that there was delay in payment of service tax is not sustainable.3. in view of the position noted above, the appeal is allowed after setting aside the impugned order.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides and perused the records. The impugned order has demanded the' amount of about Rs. 5 lakhs from the appellant G.M.Telecom, Chandigarh on the ground that there was delay in payment of Service Tax during the period April, 97 to Dec, 97 in respect of service tax on telephone services rendered by the appellant. The contention of the appellant was that the procedure for collection of telecom charges as well as deposit of service tax remains stipulated in the circular by the Principal Chief Controller of Accounts and the same had been accepted by the Central Board of Excise & Customs also. This was the procedure followed till March' 99. The contention of the appellant, therefore, is that there was no delay in making payments, as payments had been made in terms of an agreed accounting procedure. Ld.

Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on Tribunal's Final Order No. 4/2003-NB(A) dt.2-6-2003 in Appeal No. ST 25/2002-NB(A) filed by the present appellant.

2. The issue raised in this appeal remains covered by our order dt.

2-6-2003 in the aforesaid earlier appeal. Since the Service Tax was being paid in terms of agreed accounting procedure, the finding of the Commissioner that there was delay in payment of service tax is not sustainable.

3. In view of the position noted above, the appeal is allowed after setting aside the impugned order.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties G.M. Telecom, Bsnl vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge N T C.N.B.