2009 (1) TMI 142 - AT - Service Tax

Hoarding contractors/outdoor contractors for the purpose of exhibiting hoarding prepared by Advertisement Agencies - submission that all the Advertisement Agencies for whom they have rendered work of sub-contractor, have discharged service tax liability including the amount paid by them to the appellant evidences in this relation relied upon before Tribunal were not produced before the Original Authority Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner and remand the matter for fresh adjudication

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI issued a judgement in on 14th January 2009. The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 13/RK/2006, dated 31-3-200
The appellant, a hoarding contractor, was appealing against a service tax liability. The appellant argued that the service charges paid by the Advertisement Agencies to them were part of the charges for which the Advertisement Agencies had already paid service tax. The appellant submitted evidence, including Advertisement Release Orders and certificates from Advertisement Agencies, indicating that service tax had been paid by the main agencies. The Tribunal found that the evidence was not presented before the Original Authority and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The appellant was directed to make written submissions to the Commissioner within 45 days. The Commissioner was to then decide the case promptly after granting a reasonable opportunity for the appellants to be heard. The appeal was allowed by way of remand on the above terms. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court on 14th January 2009.