2007 (4) TMI 97 - Commissioner - Service Tax

Advertising agency - Department alleged that appellant are engaged in the rendering of Advertising services and not paid the service tax on it and accordingly demand were made along with interest and penalty - Held that department allegation not sustained and set aside

Summary

Issues involved:
- Allegation of non-payment of Service Tax for "Scanning Charges" and "Publicity Material Charges" collected from customers
- Show Cause Notice issued demanding Service Tax and penalties under Section 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994
- Appeal filed against Order-in-Original confirming the demand with interest and imposing penalties

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in "Advertisement services," faced allegations of not paying Service Tax for specific charges collected from customers. A Show Cause Notice was issued, demanding Service Tax and penalties under relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The appellant contended that Service Tax is only applicable if a service is rendered, not for mere sale of goods. They argued that they did not provide any service but engaged in sales activities, including buying and selling publicity materials. The appellant claimed they were under a genuine belief that they were not liable for Service Tax, thus challenging the imposition of penalties.

3. During the Personal Hearing, the appellant's representative reiterated their appeal arguments, while no representation was made from the department's side.

4. The main issue revolved around determining whether the appellant provided "Advertisement Agency" services, making them liable for Service Tax payment. The definition of 'Advertising Agency' under Section 65(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 was crucial, emphasizing the engagement in providing services connected to advertising as an organized and continuous activity. Citing a relevant legal precedent, it was established that selling materials without providing services does not attract Service Tax liability.

5. The judgment highlighted that the appellant's activities primarily involved the sale of various publicity materials to customers, which were treated as goods under the sales tax act. Drawing from legal precedents and the nature of the appellant's transactions, it was concluded that no Service Tax was payable as no services were rendered. Consequently, the Order-in-Original was deemed legally flawed and set aside, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the rejection of imposed penalties.

6. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, emphasizing the absence of Service Tax liability due to the nature of the appellant's activities centered around the sale of goods without the provision of services, leading to the dismissal of penalties as well.