9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent Per B. Ravichandran: The Revenue is in appeal against order dated 3.12.2010 of Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. The Respondent are engaged mainly in printing flex board as per the requirements of the clients. The Revenue entertained a view that printing and preparation of such flex boards and subsequent delivery and mounting it in the required premises by the Respondent is a taxabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded the matter for a fresh decision. As such no ratio has been laid down in the said decision. Further, it is contended that the activities undertaken by the Respondent in creating the flex board and helping the display of the same in the required site is covered under the overall ambit of the tax entry for advertising agency. The flex board created in as per the requirement of the clients which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e specification of customer. They also undertake work of installation of the same at site and recovered the amounts from their clients for the said services. The impugned order examined illustrative work orders and concluded that printing of flex boards based on the contents supplied by the customer will not be covered by the scope of advertising agency service. It was recorded that the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue in appeal contested the analysis of work orders by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), contrary evidence to support the claim that the respondent were in fact engaged in creating advertising content and displaying the said cont3ent has not been brought out. We find that the examination and finding in the impugned order cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
