TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (Judicial) Shri Krishna Mohan, Advocate - for the appellant. Shri K. Poddar, AR - for the Respondent. ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty 1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with Service Tax Department under the taxable category of Advertising Service, as defined under Section 65(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant is a sub-contractor operating in unison with M/s Rajasthan Samwad (Advertising Agency of Rajasthan State Govt.), upon a principal contract between the Department of Information and Public Relation (DIPR), Ministry of Information, State of Rajasthan and Rajasthan Samwad. 2. During the period i.e. Oct 2006 to Mar, 2010, M/s Rajasthan Samwad invoiced DIPR for certain s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Vijay Sharma Co. V/s CCE, Chandigarh, 2010 (20) STR 309 (Tri. LB) and Lone Star Engineers V/s CCE, Panchkula, 2017 (47) STR 133 (Tri. Chan.) 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that since the appellant provided the taxable service, it is liable to pay the tax on such service. To support the impugned order, the Ld. Advocate has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Safe Sure Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. V/s CST, Mumbai 2012 (28) STR 30 (Tri.-Mumbai). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The fact is not under dispute that Service Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stant case, the Service Tax has been paid on the amount which was receivable by the agency, entrusted with job of advertising the said material. Any further levy of tax at the end of the noticee would amount to double taxation which may not be permissible under the law. 7. It is evident from the above observations of the Adjudicating Authority that the service Tax in respect of the services provided by the appellant had already been discharged by the main advertiser. Hence, it is not the case of non-payment of tax by the appellant for providing the taxable service. I find that the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Vijay Sharma and Company (supra) and the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lone Star Engineer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
