The Executive Engineer E v. CCE & ST

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2018 TaxPub(ST) 2208 (CESTAT-Del) : (2019) 085 ITPJ (S) 0989 The Executive Engineer E v. CCE & ST FINANCE ACT, 1994 --Telecommunication service --TaxabilityTransaction between assessee and head office located in same circle----Where the assessee and the head office fell in same circle of BSNL, the transaction between the two could not be termed as provision of service, hence, no service tax was payable.--Assessee was engaged in providing telecommunication service to various operators. Revenue alleged that since assessee was collecting monthly charges from the other Telecommunication Operators and discharging their taxability, it was liable for discharging the same qua CMTS, associate company of assessee, as well. Assessee contended that it was none but electrical division of BSNL only. *Held:* In view of Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of CCE v. BSNL, 2016 (43) STR 540 (Raj.) : 2016 TaxPub(ST) 1431 (Raj-HC), credit was admissible on the ground that the assessee and the head office fell in same circle of BSNL. Hence the transaction between the two could not be termed as provision of service, no service tax was payable. Finance Act, 1994 Section 65(105)(zzzx) *REFERRED :* FAVOUR : In favour of assessee. A.Y. : FINANCE ACT, 1994 --Demand--Invocation of extended period of limitationNo taxability involved----Where taxability was not involved question of evasion of tax did not arise, therefore, extended period of limitation could not be invoked. --Revenue invoked extended period of limitation on the ground that the assessee had suppressed or mis-represent the fact with the intent to evade tax. *Held:* Once no taxability was involved, question of evasion of tax did not arise. Therefore, extended period of limitation could not be invoked. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2018 TaxPub(ST) 2208 (CESTAT-Del) : (2019) 085 ITPJ (S) 0989

The Executive Engineer E v. CCE & ST

FINANCE ACT, 1994

--Telecommunication service --TaxabilityTransaction between assessee and head office located in same circle----Where the assessee and the head office fell in same circle of BSNL, the transaction between the two could not be termed as provision of service, hence, no service tax was payable.--Assessee was engaged in providing telecommunication service to various operators. Revenue alleged that since assessee was collecting monthly charges from the other Telecommunication Operators and discharging their taxability, it was liable for discharging the same qua CMTS, associate company of assessee, as well. Assessee contended that it was none but electrical division of BSNL only. Held: In view of Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of CCE v. BSNL, 2016 (43) STR 540 (Raj.) : 2016 TaxPub(ST) 1431 (Raj-HC), credit was admissible on the ground that the assessee and the head office fell in same circle of BSNL. Hence the transaction between the two could not be termed as provision of service, no service tax was payable.

Finance Act, 1994 Section 65(105)(zzzx)

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In favour of assessee.

A.Y. :

FINANCE ACT, 1994

--Demand--Invocation of extended period of limitationNo taxability involved----Where taxability was not involved question of evasion of tax did not arise, therefore, extended period of limitation could not be invoked. --Revenue invoked extended period of limitation on the ground that the assessee had suppressed or mis-represent the fact with the intent to evade tax. Held: Once no taxability was involved, question of evasion of tax did not arise. Therefore, extended period of limitation could not be invoked.