TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/64/2012 - Final Order No. 41482 / 2018 - Dated:- 2-5-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri K. P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Appellant Shri J. Shankararaman, and Shri S. Sivaramakrishnan, Advocates for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The above appeal is filed by the department aggrieved by the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the demand, interest and the penalties imposed. 2. Brief facts are that during the course of audit, Malar Publications Ltd. for the period February 2008, it came to light that M/s. Sovereign Media Marketing (P) Ltd. (respondents herein) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertisement agency which is generally equal to the discount offered by the print media due to the advertisement agency and the commission is the fee charged by the agency for agency business. In view of the above, the service rendered by the respondent is similar to commission agent and rightly classifiable under BAS. Even though it is fixed as retainer fee / commission between the parties, it is actually consideration for rendering the canvassing service on commission basis. Board by Circular No. 96/7/2007-ST dated 23.8.2007 has clarified that such consideration is subject to levy of service tax. Further vide circular F.No.332/4/2008-TRU dated 5.5.2008, it has been clarified that the commission earned by the advertisement agency is leviable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequent to the period in the present case. The period involved in the said final order was from 1.4.2005 to 31.1.2008 whereas the period involved in the present case is from 1.7.2003 to 31.3.2005. He argued that there was much confusion with regard to levy of service tax of retainer fee on the commission received since there were circulars issued by the Board initially in 2003 which stated that the said services of advertisement agency is not subject to levy of service tax. There was also a decision of the Bangalore Bench in the case of Rex Advertisers Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore reported in 2006 (2) STR 330 wherein the issue of selling of space was considered and held to be in favour of the assessee. Thus, since the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
