9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w sign boards, flex board, flex sheets, sticker etc. which are having the names and logo of respective customers to advertise and promote their names, brand and business. It appeared to Revenue that the above stated activity is covered by advertising agency services defined in Section 65(105)(e) of the Finance Act, 1944. Therefore, the appellants were issued with various show cause notices as follows :- a) Show cause notice dated 22.04.2009, demanding Service Tax of Rs. 1,47,92,996/- under the category of advertising agency service for the period from 01.01.2003 to 30.09.2008. b) Show cause notice dated 19.03.2010 demanding Service Tax of Rs. 89,29,353/- under the same category of service for the period October, 2008 to December, 2009. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of designing, visualizing and conceptualizing their activity did not get covered by the definition of advertising agency service. The Original Authority did not appreciate the argument put forth and confirmed the demand. The demands were confirmed through OIO No.02/ST/COMMR./2010 dated 23.02.2010, OIO No. 07-08/COMMR./ST/2009 dated 31.03.2011, KNP-EXCUSS-000-COM-005-14-15 dated 28.08.2014, KNP-EXCUSS-000-COM-005-15-16 dated 28.08.2015. Through the above stated four Order-in-Original the demands raised through the above stated show cause noties were confirmed. Aggrieved by the said OIOs, the appellant preferred above stated four appeals before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He has contended as follows. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture and sale. 7. In any case the cost of material cannot be subjected to service tax when dominant intention is to manufacture and sale the goods." He has further relied on this Tribunal's Final Order No.70961 of 2016 dated 03.10.2016 and contended that said final order is squarely applicable in the present case. 4. Learned AR. has supported the impugned Orders-in-Original. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the appellant is not engaged in the activity of designing, visualizing or conceptualising the material which is present in the work provided by them. We further find that the final order dated 03.10.2016 passed by this Tribunal is squarely applicable in the present case. This Tribunal has held that if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
