2017 (8) TMI 551

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e buses, belonging to Metropolitan Transport Corporation in Tamilnadu on the basis of a mutual agreement and on payment of advance license fees, and (ii) Hoardings, and (iii) Railway glow sign Ads. 2. On the basis of intelligence gathered, with regard to the above activities, the department was of the view that the above activities qualify to be services falling under Advertisement Agency Service and therefore a show cause notice dated 8.2.2007 was issued for the period 2003 2004 to 2005 2006. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand of service tax along with interest and also imposed penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, learned co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lace in the rear of the busses or inside the buses for display of the advertisement. It is not established that the appellants were engaged in making, preparation, conceptualizing or visualizing of the advertisement. In the case of Zee Telefilm Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2006 (4) STR 349 (Tri. Mumbai), a similar question came for consideration. So also in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai - 2007 (7) STR 384 (Tri. Mumbai). The definition of advertisement agency service as well as the latter category namely Sale of Space or Time for Advertisement and Sponsorship services were discussed and analyzed in the above decisions. Before, we go into the merits of the case, it needs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the subsequent entry was covered by the earlier entry, there was no reason or scope to create the present entry especially when the rate of tax in respect of both the entries remains unchanged. Certainly, creation of new entries was not by way of bifurcation of the earlier entry inasmuch as the earlier entry relating to advertisement remains unchanged without any change in the tax rate. As such, the introduction of new tariff entry do imply that the coverage in the new tariff for the purposes of tax was an area not covered by the earlier entry. It was so held in case of Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceutical Ltd. reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 711 (T) = 2005 (188) E.L.T. 171 (Tri.-Mumbai) as also in case of M/s. ZEE Telefilms Ltd. & M/s. Star India .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X