9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Classification of the appellant as a Service Provider under the category of "advertising agency." Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal The appellant, a proprietary concern, filed an Affidavit explaining a delay of 42 days in filing the appeal due to the Accountant leaving without handing over relevant papers. The appellant cited precedents like Evergreen Plywood Indus. (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Patna and State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO to support the condonation of delay. The Tribunal accepted the reasons given and noted that a strict view should not be taken in the absence of gross negligence. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the COD application was allowed. Issue 2: Classification of the appellant as a Service Provider under the category of "advertising agency" The appellant was required to pre-deposit Service Tax and penalty amounts as a Service Provider under the category of "advertising agency." The appellant argued that they only provided space for advertisements, not advertising services, citing Board's Circular No. 64/13/2003-S.T. and Tribunal rulings supporting their position. Considering the circular and rulings, the Tribunal found a strong prima facie case in favor of the appellant. As a result, the stay application was allowed, waiving the pre-deposit amounts and staying their recovery until the appeal's disposal. The matter was scheduled for final hearing on 27th January 2006.
|
