2007 (3) TMI 78 - AT - Service Tax

Advertising Agency service - Revenue contended that appellant were suppressed the fact with intent to evade service tax payment - Held that revenue contention was not right and demand was not sustainable

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of services rendered by the appellants as "advertising agency services" or "video production services."
2. Imposition of personal penalty on the appellants.
3. Contention regarding the limitation period for issuing the show cause notice.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of services
The Appellate Tribunal, CESTAT, Mumbai, in the impugned order confirmed Service Tax against the appellants, treating the services rendered by them as "advertising agency services" for the period 1-4-99 to 15-7-2001. The appellants argued that their services should be classified under "Video Production Services," which became taxable from 16-7-2001. They contended that they engage in activities like engaging directors, models/actors, production crew, recording video and sound, post-production editing, and dubbing for advertising agencies. The appellants asserted that they are known as a production house delivering master tapes to clients for advertisement display, not as an advertising agency. The Tribunal found that the services rendered by the appellants fall under video tape production services, not advertising agency services, as claimed by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the appeal was accepted on this ground, setting aside the impugned order.

Issue 2: Imposition of personal penalty
The impugned order also imposed a personal penalty on the appellants. However, the Tribunal's decision on the classification of services as video production services negated the basis for the penalty. Since the services were correctly classified, the imposition of the personal penalty was unwarranted, and the penalty was not upheld.

Issue 3: Limitation period for issuing show cause notice
The appellants raised an argument regarding the limitation period for issuing the show cause notice, contending that the notice issued on 25-6-2004 was beyond the normal limitation period. They invoked the longer period of limitation of five years due to alleged suppression on their part to evade service tax. The appellants highlighted an earlier show cause notice from 13-7-99, where they had specifically mentioned their liability to service tax instead of central excise duty. The Tribunal noted that the revenue was aware of all facts regarding the activities undertaken by the appellants, including the earlier dispute on excisability. As a result, the Tribunal held that the show cause notice dated 25-6-2004 for the period 1-4-99 to 15-7-2001 was time-barred due to lack of suppression on the appellants' part. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on this ground, and the impugned order was set aside.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal, CESTAT, Mumbai, ruled in favor of the appellants by classifying their services as video production services, thereby overturning the Service Tax liability and personal penalty imposed on them. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued beyond the limitation period was invalid due to the revenue's prior knowledge of the relevant facts.