2011 (4) TMI 1178 - AT - Service Tax

Advertisement Agency - Delay in payment of service tax - Held that - Though the information received by the department was very specific, it is seen that the SCN proposed demand based on the figures reported in the balance sheet of the company under the Appellant for the period 2001-02 to 2004-05 - Appeal paper has not enclosed the barter agreement. It is not clear what was the service being rendered to Kinetic Egg. Pune. But this confusion is not a hindrance in appreciating facts for the four financial years ending 2004-05 - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Service tax liability for advertising agency services.
2. Allegations of suppressing the value of taxable services.
3. Imposition of penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994.
4. Appeal against the original order and subsequent decisions.

Issue 1: Service Tax Liability for Advertising Agency Services:
The Appellant, a business canvassing advertisements for newspapers, was registered under The Service Tax Rules, 1997. The Revenue suspected the Appellant of suppressing the value of services rendered. Following investigations and a search, a show cause notice (SCN) was issued, confirming a demand for Service Tax and Education Cess. The original order imposed penalties under Sections 76, 78, and 77 of the Act. The Appellant appealed the order, arguing that their service did not fall within taxable service ambit.

Issue 2: Allegations of Suppressing the Value of Taxable Services:
The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand for Service Tax, interest, and penalties for suppressing the value of taxable services. The Commissioner (Appeal) later reviewed the matter and found discrepancies in the calculation of the tax liability. The Commissioner accepted that a portion of the tax liability was already paid and recalculated the taxable value of services. The penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority were set aside, except for the penalty under Section 76 due to delayed payment.

Issue 3: Imposition of Penalties under Various Sections:
Penalties were imposed under Sections 76, 78, and 77 of the Act in the original order. The Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the penalty under Section 76 due to delayed payment but set aside other penalties as the Appellant had paid a portion of the tax liability on time. The Appeal Memorandum raised concerns about the reliance on a Chartered Accountant's certificate without proper verification and highlighted alleged errors in judgment by the Commissioner (Appeal).

Issue 4: Appeal Against the Original Order and Subsequent Decisions:
The Appellant appealed the original order, challenging the nature of their service and the calculation of tax liability. The Commissioner (Appeal) reviewed the case, considered certificates from a Chartered Accountant, and recalculated the tax liability. The Appeal Memorandum raised multiple grounds, alleging errors in judgment by the Commissioner (Appeal) and highlighting inconsistencies in the documents and figures presented.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of service tax liability, allegations of suppressing taxable services, imposition of penalties, and the appeal process, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment.