Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1156 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - Advertisement Agency Service or not - providing the space for the advertisement to other advertisement agencies - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is observed that the Appellant was only providing space for advertisements on collection of rental charges. The impugned order did not disclose any evidence to the effect that the Appellant themselves had conceptualized, visualized and designed the advertisements. In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI VERSUS TEAM UPD LTD. [2004 (10) TMI 9 - CESTAT (CHENNAI)], it has been held that unless it is established that the person concerned had conceptualized, visualized and designed the advertisement, merely allowing its site to be used for display of advertisement by another party against payment of charges are not covered under the definition of “Advertisement Agency” in Section 65(3) of Finance Act, 1994. In the instant case, the Appellant has not performed conceptualization, visualization and designing of the advertisement. Thus, they have not fulfilled the condition precedent required to satisfy the service under the category of Advertisement Agency Service. It is not disputed that the Appellant has rented out the space obtained by them from organizations like Calcutta State Transport Corporation and Metro Railway to other Advertisement Agencies like M/s Sampark (Kolkata), Bells Advertising (Kolkata), Dilip Kumar Bhattacharya (Kolkata) and M/s M.A. Publicity (Kolkata) on fixed monthly charges. These Advertisement Agencies who has taken these space on rent from the Appellant actually conceptualize and design the advertisements and they are liable to pay service tax under the category of Advertisement Agency Service and not the Appellant. Accordingly, letting out space for advertisement on hoarding sites, on collection of rental charges, as done by the Appellant are not liable to service tax under the category of Advertisement Agency Service as defined under Section 65(105)(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand of service tax confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable. Since the demand itself is not sustainable, the demand of interest and imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is also not sustainable - Appeal allowed.
|