Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Handa Disc

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Handa Disc

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 06, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/42820

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/42820
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Jun 06, 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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Handa Disc

Excerpt

2. the revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals) whereby the demand of differential amount of service tax was dropped.3. the respondent is a cable operator and liable to pay service tax under section 63 of the finance act.4. the respondent admitted that they were charging rs. 135/- p.m. per connection from their customers and this amount includes rs. 10/- per connection with entertainment tax. the respondents were paying service tax after taking into consideration the monthly charges collected from their customers.5. the revenue raised a demand of differential duty on the ground that some enquiries were conducted which shows that respondent is charging @ rs. 150/- p.m. from their customers.6. the commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order held that there is no evidence on record produced by the revenue which shows that respondents were charging @ rs. 150/- p.m. from their customers.7. in the present appeal also revenue has not produced any evidence that respondents were charging @ rs. 150/- p.m. hence we find no merit in the appeal. the respondent admitted the fact that they were paying service tax after taking into consideration the monthly charges @ rs. 135/- p.m., hence it is made clear that if service tax is not paid after taking into consideration monthly charges @ 135/- p.m., the revenue is at liberty to recover the amount. the appeal is disposed of as indicated above.

Full Judgment

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the demand of differential amount of Service Tax was dropped.

3. The respondent is a cable operator and liable to pay Service Tax under Section 63 of the Finance Act.

4. The respondent admitted that they were charging Rs. 135/- p.m. per connection from their customers and this amount includes Rs. 10/- per connection with entertainment tax. The respondents were paying Service Tax after taking into consideration the monthly charges collected from their customers.

5. The Revenue raised a demand of differential duty on the ground that some enquiries were conducted which shows that respondent is charging @ Rs. 150/- p.m. from their customers.

6. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that there is no evidence on record produced by the Revenue which shows that respondents were charging @ Rs. 150/- p.m. from their customers.

7. In the present appeal also Revenue has not produced any evidence that respondents were charging @ Rs. 150/- p.m. Hence we find no merit in the appeal. The respondent admitted the fact that they were paying Service Tax after taking into consideration the monthly charges @ Rs. 135/- p.m., hence it is made clear that if Service Tax is not paid after taking into consideration monthly charges @ 135/- p.m., the Revenue is at liberty to recover the amount. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Handa Disc Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.