9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o March 2009. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the demand of tax in relation of advertising agency service is about Rs. 1.32 crores. The balance amount of about Rs. 94 lakhs is in respect of programme producer service. He submits that the applicant is also rendering service at Mumbai and Chennai and they have obtained separate service tax registration. Regarding the demand of service tax on advertisement agency service, it is submitted as under:- (a) The demand was raised on gross amount which includes print media cost. (b) The applicant placed reconciliation statement and sample copies of invoices to substantiate the bifurcation of the demand amount of commission and print media. (c) The applicant paid the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In any event, he submits that the deposit claimed by the applicant had not been appropriated by the adjudicating authority as it was deposited in the account of Mumbai Branch. The applicant has also not placed any letter from the Mumbai Commissionerate in respect of the payment made in Chennai. 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find from the applicants reply to show-cause notice dated 7.8.2012 that the applicant had take a stand that the cost of print media could not be included in the demand of advertising agency service. The demand was raised on the basis of Profit & Loss Account statement. The applicant also claimed in the said reply that they have paid the tax liability in respect of programme producer s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has only produced copies of the letters which they already submitted to the division. In the absence of ST-3 returns, it is imperative that the original documents raised by the assessee need to be relied upon to determine the actual quantum of services provided by the assessee. Hon'ble CESTAT, New Delhi, in the case of J.R. Organics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad 2009 (14) STR 622, rejected the stay application against the Order-in-Original which confirmed the demand of service tax as documentary evidence was not produced, as the records do not disclose any documentary evidence having been produced during hearing before the original authority. I draw sustenance from the above case law in view of the similarity of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
