2004 (10) TMI 17 - AT - Service Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellants' activity of producing TV serials constitutes acting as an advertising agency.
2. Whether the authorities below correctly determined the matter based on the evidence presented.
3. Whether the appellants' claim regarding their activities being limited to TV serial production is substantiated by the evidence.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that they are not directly involved in the activities of advertising agencies but are primarily engaged in producing TV serials. The consultant contended that the demand confirming them as advertising agents is incorrect. They referenced Board Circulars to support their claim that Service Tax should be charged at 15% for assisting advertising agencies, not as advertising agents themselves. The authorities below based their conclusion on Income Tax Returns, which the appellant argued did not prove their exclusive role as advertising agents. The Tribunal found that the appellant provided substantial evidence to support their claim, including a Registration Certificate as a 'Serial Recording & Advertising Co.' The balance sheet confirmed their focus on TV serial production, leading to a remand for further consideration based on the evidence presented.

2. The Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) contended that the authorities correctly determined the matter, emphasizing the lack of evidence from the appellant to support their claim. The SDR supported the impugned order as just and proper, indicating that the appellant failed to substantiate their position adequately.

3. Upon careful consideration of both parties' submissions, the Tribunal acknowledged the substantial evidence presented by the appellants to prove their primary activity as TV serial production, not advertising agency services. The Registration Certificate and balance sheet supported the appellant's claim, leading to the conclusion that the Service Tax charged based on the assumption of them being advertising agents was incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration by the original authority, directing a speaking order after affording the appellants an opportunity to be heard.