9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of service as videotape production service u/s 65(120) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Summary: The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner, contending that the respondent's activity constituted videotape production service. However, the respondent argued that their service was distinct from videotape production as they were primarily involved in news gathering, editing, and telecasting, not photography or videography. The learned Commissioner correctly analyzed the activities undertaken by the respondent and compared them with the statutory definition of videotape production service. The learned adjudicating authority detailed the process carried out by the respondent, involving news gathering, editing, and transmission for telecasting. He specifically considered whether the service provided could be classified as videotape production service by a videotape production agency, as defined under Section 65(120) of the Finance Act, 1994. By examining the MOU between the parties and the actual activities performed, he concluded that the respondent was not engaged in videotape production but rather in compiling news, events, and editing for telecasting. After careful consideration of the facts and statutory provisions, it was determined that the respondent did not fall under the classification of a videotape production agency. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's order. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
|
