Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Handa Disc - Court Judgment

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.

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.