BHAGWATI ENTERPRISES Vs. C.C.E.
LAWS(CE)-2015-9-3
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on September 04,2015

BHAGWATI ENTERPRISES Appellant
VERSUS
C.C.E. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CCE V. AZAD PUBLICATION [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. INCODA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.K.SINGH, J. - (1.)
(2.)APPEAL has been filed against order in appeal No. 16/ST/APPL/Jal/2009 dated 17.02.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh which upheld the Order -in -original dated 25.11.2008 in terms of which service tax demand of Rs. 3,58,546/ - was confirmed alongwith interest and penalties on the ground that the appellants were providing advertising agency service on which they did not pay service tax during the period 2006 -07.
The appellants have contended that they were not providing any advertising agency service and were in fact renting space from Railways which they used to further give on rent. They were not providing any design or material etc. and therefore were not covered under the advertising agency service. They stated that the service rendered by them would be covered under renting of immovable property service which were not taxable during the period 2006 -07.

(3.)WE have considered the contentions of the appellants. In Section 65(3) of Finance Act, 1994, advertising agency is defined as under:
"Advertising agency means any person engaged in providing any service connected with the making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement and includes an advertising consultant.

The appellants have essentially stated that they were taking space from Railways on rent and giving the same on rent to various persons but they were not engaged in providing any service connected with making, preparation display or exhibition of advertisement. It is seen that in the case of CCE v. Azad Publication : 2004 (167) ELT 59 (Tri. Del.) it was held that permitting display of advertisement on its site and raising bill for realising rental charges was not covered under advertising agency service. Similarly, in the case of CCE v. The Incoda : 2004 (174) ELT 65 (Tri. Kol), it was held that respondent hired space in Metro Railway coaches and inter -alia provided space to its client for advertising and such activity was not tantamount to an act of advertising agency. Thus renting of space without providing any service connected with making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement would not be covered under advertising agency service."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.