CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1 Service Tax Appeal No. 1883 of 2012 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.33 & 34/2012 dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals), Bangalore.)

Vodafone Essar South Ltd.

11/1,12/1, Maruthi Infortech Centre, Appellant(s)

Amarjyothi Layout, Domlur, Bangalore-560 071.

VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, 1^st to 5^th Floor, Respondent(s)

TTMC Building, above BMTC Bus Stand, Domlur, Bangalore-560 071.

WITH Service Tax Appeal No. 21229 of 2016 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.BLR-EXCUS-003-COM-56-15-16 dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore.)

Vodafone Essar South Ltd.

11/1,12/1, Maruthi Infortech Centre, Appellant(s)

Amarjyothi Layout, Domlur, Bangalore-560 071.

VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, 1^st to 5^th Floor, Respondent(s)

TTMC Building, above BMTC Bus Stand, Domlur, Bangalore-560 071.

APPEARANCE:

Mr. Syed Peeran, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vikalp Jain, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDERS NO. 20467 – 20468 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING: 24.02.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 24.02.2026 PER: D.M. MISRA These two appeals are filed against respective Orders-in-

Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are registered under the category of Telecommunication Service. During the course of audit of their records, it was noticed that they were providing in-roaming services from five circles viz., Chenai, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. Alleging that appropriate service tax was not discharged on the gross amount, show-cause notices were issued from time to time demanding service tax. On adjudication, the demands were confirmed with interest and penalty. Hence, the present appeals.

3. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the basic requirement for the activity of the appellant to qualify as taxable service in terms of definition of ‘Telecommunication Service’ is the existence of at least ‘two persons’, namely the service provider and service recipient. However, in the present case, the different offices situated at different circles of the appellant are part of the very same legal entity of the appellant itself and merely operate as cost centres for the purpose of internally assessing the profitability of each centre, therefore, in the absence of distinct service provider and service recipient, no service tax can be levied on the activity of the appellant. Further, it is submitted that the issue is no more res integra and is covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of General Manager, BSNL Cellular Mobile Services vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise: 2019 (25) GSTL 238 (Tri.-Chennai) and Executive Engineer, BSNL vs. CCE & ST, Jaipur: 2019 (25) GSTL 110 (Tri.-Del.). Further, he has submitted that all facts are within the knowledge of the department, hence, invoking extended period of limitation alleging suppression cannot be sustained.

4. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (A).

5. Heard both sides and perused the records. The short issue involved in the present appeal is whether interconnection usage charges for the services provided at different locations of the appellant is chargeable to service tax under the category of ‘Telecommunication Service’ during the relevant period. We find that the issue is no more res integra and is covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of General Manager, BSNL Cellular Mobile Services (supra), wherein it was observed as:

“6.1 The services provided by the appellants to their Landline segment, namely, Interconnect Usage Charges and the consequent collection of Interco