2014 (11) TMI 461 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Programme Producer Service and Advertising Agency Service - Payment credited at wrong place - Held that - Applicant claimed that the amount as demanded was paid and it has also been paid at Chennai, but, it was credited in Mumbai Account. Prima facie, we are not satisfied with the submission of the learned counsel insofar as the amount was paid in the Chennai account. It is also seen that the applicant had not filed any ST-3 returns and therefore there is no scope of the Revenue to verify the payment. We are not clear as to how the applicant paid this amount as claimed by them but they have not filed any return at Chennai. Prima facie, we also find that the demand of tax on print media cost is not sustainable. Thus, there is a dispute in quantification of the demand. Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of service tax under 'Programme Producer Service' and 'Advertising Agency Service' for the period from October 2004 to March 2009.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the demand of service tax on two categories - 'Programme Producer Service' and 'Advertising Agency Service'. The applicant, engaged in producing television programmes and supervising production activities, faced a confirmed demand of service tax amounting to &8377; 2,26,78,345/- along with interest and penalty for the mentioned period. The applicant disputed the tax demand, highlighting that the tax on advertising agency service was about &8377; 1.32 crores, with the remaining amount pertaining to programme producer service. The applicant contended that they had paid the tax at Chennai but mistakenly used the service tax registration number of the Mumbai branch. The dispute also included the tax on print media cost under the advertising agency service.

Regarding the demand on programme producer service, the applicant had paid most of the tax except for an amount of &8377; 15,88,767/-. The Revenue argued that the applicant failed to file returns at Chennai and did not provide substantial evidence of the tax payment. The Revenue emphasized that the applicant collected service tax from customers but did not deposit it in Chennai, leading to a lack of documentation supporting the tax payments. The adjudicating authority found discrepancies in the applicant's claims and the lack of proper evidence to substantiate the print media cost for the advertising agency service.

The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence and submissions from both sides. It noted the applicant's failure to provide adequate documentation and invoice-wise break-up to support their claims. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the payment details and the lack of ST-3 returns filed by the applicant. While the applicant asserted that the demanded amount was paid in Chennai but credited to the Mumbai account, the Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of supporting evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicant to predeposit &8377; 30,00,000/- within eight weeks to resolve the dispute, with the balance dues waived upon compliance and recovery stayed during the appeal process.