|
Court : CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH
Brief : : Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Cable operator - Whether if a society is a cable operator and provides cable services as understood under section 2(b) of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 to a customer and to any person, it would be providing taxable service so as to attract provisions of section 65(105)(zs) as amended from 10-9-2004 - Held, yes [Para 5]
>> Facts
The assessee was a registered society from whom the adjudicating authority demanded service tax in respect of taxable service provided by it to its members on payment of monthly subscription under the category of ‘Cable Operator’s service’. A penalty was also imposed upon the assessee.
On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand holding that the activities of the society were not for the purpose of making money or for any commercial consideration, and that it was a welfare society.
On revenue’s appeal :
Citation : Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II
v.
Anubhagya Welfare Society
Judgment :
>> Held
The respondent was a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Act and was giving facility to its members by providing ‘Cable Services’ under section 65(105)(za) to a customer (to ‘any person’ after the amendment from 10-9-2004) in relation to cable services. The word ‘Cable Operator’ is defined under sub-section (21) of section 65 and the expression has the meaning assigned to it in clause (aa) of section 2 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The expression ‘Cable Service’ has a meaning assigned to it in clause (b) of section 2 of that Act as provided by section 65(22) of the 1994 Act. Therefore, if the society is a ‘Cable Operator’ and provides cable services as understood under the said Act to a customer, and to ‘any person’, it would be providing taxable service so as to attract the provisions of the Act. It appeared from the impugned order that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not considered the provisions of the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995, under which no person shall operate a cable television network unless registered as a ‘Cable Operator’ under the Act, nor had he examined whether the society was registered as a cable operator to legitimately operate a cable television network. The Commissioner (Appeals) had also not examined the provisions of the Rajasthan Societies Act under which the respondent was said to have been registered. He had also not examined the amendment in Clauses (zs) of section 65(105), which was noted earlier. The matter was, therefore, required to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for his fresh consideration. [Para 5]
The appeal was to be, accordingly, allowed by way of remand. [Para 6]
|
