COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ROHTAK Vs. VOICE TELESYSTEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of STA Nos. 15, 20 to 22 and 28 of 2015 and CEA Nos.34, 43, 41 and 48 of 2015 as learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue involved in all these appeals is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from STA No.15 of 2015.

(2.) Sta No.15 of 2015 has been preferred by the appellant-revenue under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, "the Act") read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 against the final order dated 10.12.2014, Annexure A.5 in appeal No. ST 1664/2010, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, "the Tribunal") claiming following substantial question of law:-

(3.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The respondent assessee company was engaged in providing business Auxiliary service w.e.f November 2002 to M/s BSNL. Later on, it got itself registered for the category of business auxiliary service as per Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 and was not paying service tax under the service tax provisions. Investigation in the matter was carried out on the basis of information that the respondent was a channel partner of M/s BSNL and was engaged in the promotion of marketing of its services since November 2002 without getting itself registered for service tax. The respondent did not disclose the fact of providing this service to the department. In response to the letters dated 10.5.2008 and 11.9.2008 issued by the department, the assessee submitted that it received an amount of Rs. 1,18,78,093/- from BSNL during the period from April 2007 to March 2008. Hence a Show Cause notice was issued to it on 3.10.2008, Annexure A.1. The case was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner and vide order dated 29/30.9.2009, Annexure A.2, the demand was confirmed alongwith interest. A penalty of Rs. 12 lacs was also imposed. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent-assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected vide order dated 16.8.2010, Annexure A.3. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 4.7.2011, Annexure A.4, the Tribunal granted stay in the matter. As the period of 365 days had lapsed, the assessee again filed application for extension of stay. The Tribunal vide order dated 10.12.2014, Annexure A.5 extended the stay for a period of six months. Hence the instant appeals by the revenue.