M. VETRI SELVAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the above appeals involve a common issue namely as to amount of service tax required to be paid by the appellants herein who are individual cable operators and hence are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) I have heard both sides on the enhancement of service tax liability on each assessee by the Commissioner in his Order -in -Revision. He has held that each of the individual cable operators had 350 cable connections and collected Rs. 200 per month per connection from the subscribers during the material period, evading service tax liability. The reliance has been placed on a register seized from Madurai Cable TV Communication (MCTC) to hold that each individual cable operator had 350 connections. Author of this register is one Ramesh who has deposed that the register contained details as to number of KTV connections held by each individual cable TV operator. He has also deposed that Rs. 20 is the payment made for each KTV connection to them (MCTC). The Commissioner has, however, relied upon the statement of Ramesh and his brother Shri Vijayakumar to hold that payment for each Sumangali Cable Vision connection was Rs. 172 and, therefore, each individual cable operator had collected Rs. 200 (Rs. 20 + Rs. 172 + Rs. 8) per connection from the customers. There is no basis for the Commissioner to come to the conclusion that Rs. 200 had been collected per connection for the reason that each individual cable operator who was given KTV connection alone was shown in the relied upon register and amount paid for each KTV connection was only Rs. 20. The Commissioner, therefore, has erred in holding that Rs. 200 had been collected per connection by each individual cable operator. Shri Vetri Selvan had 350 KTV connections; M/s. Jizan Cables had 225 KTV connections; Shri M.A. Rasheed had 335 KTV connections; Shri Baskaran had 75 KTV connections and Shri Suyumburaja had 375 KTV connections. Each individual cable operator is stated to have paid Rs. 20 per KTV connection. Therefore, the Commissioner has erred in holding that each individual cable operator had paid Rs. 200 per connection. The adjudicating authority has rightly accepted the contention of the assessees that they had paid at the rate of Rs. 20 per KTV connection. Therefore, the enhancement done by the Commissioner in revision to the rate of Rs. 200 per connection is not sustainable. I, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals.