Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2013 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 258 - AT - Service TaxSale of space or time for advertisement - allegation of suppression of value of the advertising services provided - appellate Commissioner relying on the judgment of Euro RSCG Advertising Ltd. (2006 (12) TMI 61 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) and the CBEC Circular No. 64/13/2003-ST dated 28.10.2003 concluded that the amounts received by the appellant are not exigible to service tax as advertising service agency - Held that:- Interpretation of provisions of Section 65(105) (zzzm) as elucidated in Board’s Circular dated 28.10.2003 clearly enacts that any service provided to any person by any other person in relation to sale of space or time for advertisement [as defined in explanation (1) to clause (zzzm)], would constitute the taxable service. The clarification issued by the Board which facially conveys an implication that mere sale of space or time would not constitute the service provided an advertising agency service fails to bring out the true import of the taxing provision. On the above analysis, as the grammatical meaning of the taxing provision is in conformity with its legal meaning, the activity of the petitioner as delineated in the adjudication order, would fall within the net of service tax as spelt out in Section 65(105)(zzzm). The contrary conclusion by the appellate authority, founded on to the decision of this Tribunal in Euro RSCG Advertising Ltd. which is distinguishable on its distinct facts and the Board’s circular dated 28.10.2003 (which as founded does not really clarify the position), is therefore unsustainable. Invocation of the extended period of limitation - Held that:- The adjudication authority clearly recorded a finding that failure of the assessee to disclose the position inconformity with the position in its balance sheet, in the ST-3 returns filed amounts to suppression of the correct taxable value from the department; that this position is fortified by the figures in the balance sheet of the assessee admitted by Ms. Shaifali Singh, in her statement recorded on 23.8.2006. Since there is a suppression by the assessee, rationally concluded by the adjudication authority, invocation of the extended period of limitation is legitimate. The adjudication order is thus impeccable and warrants no interference. The appellate authority erred in reversing the adjudication order. Against assessee.
|