BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LD . Counsel Shri. G.C. Babbar, submits that this appellant is a Public Sector undertaking providing telephone services. It is quite practical that bills of certain months are not realized in every month for the service provided. Service is also provided from different points. But at the initial stage this appellant has to seen registration under Rule 4(1) under Service Tax Rules 1994. Subsequently, this appellant has been registered under Rule 4(2) of Service Tax Rules 1994. Considering the difficulties of the appellant, Deptt. in terms of letter dated 12.05.98 had allowed this appellant to operate under Provisional Assessment Scheme and submit the return in form No. ST -3A under Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules 1994. When this appellant came in Stay application before this Tribunal its grievance was placed as under:

(2.) CONSIDERING that the assessment were provisional the Stay Application was allowed.

(3.) LD . DR also fully agrees that there is a letter at page No. 24 of the appeal folder showing provisional assessment was going on. Also he agrees that this provisional assessment aspect has been examined by the Tribunal, when the stay order was passed. There is no difficulty for the Department to conclude the assessment finally taking all provisional assessment figures (sic) into consideration and all pleading of the appellant. But he specifically points out that when the appellant was not registered under Rule 4(2) of Service Tax Rules 1994 during the material period, the appellants shall not be entitled to the benefit under Rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules 1994.