2017 (2) TMI 211 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of tax - the respondent is not involved in designing, visualizing, conceptualizing of the advertisements, and that the respondent was just engaged in printing the advertising materials provided to him by his client and was also performing additional work of installing same at the places already decided by his clients - whether the respondent is liable to pay service tax? Held that - for the period earlier than the period of present SCN the same respondent was issued with a SCN on the same grounds and ultimately the matter reached before this Tribunal and this Tribunal in the case of M/s Avon Awning Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S. Tax, Ghaziabad 2016 (10) TMI 683 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , has held that for the activities stated in the said show-cause-notice the respondent was not liable for levy of Service Tax - the activity covered by the present appeal is not liable for levy of Service Tax - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of Service Tax on Advertising Agency Services.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the imposition of Service Tax on Advertising Agency Services provided by the respondents. The show-cause notice alleged that the respondents were providing taxable services under Advertising Agency Service. The Original Authority confirmed the demand of Service Tax and imposed a penalty, which was challenged by the respondents before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate Authority held that the services provided by the respondents were not liable to Service Tax as they were not involved in designing, visualizing, or conceptualizing advertisements but only in printing and installing materials provided by clients. Consequently, the Order-in-Original was set aside.

During the hearing, the Ld. DR for Revenue supported the Order-in-Original, while the consultant for the respondent highlighted a previous Final Order by the Tribunal dated 03.10.2016, which had held that the respondent was not liable for Service Tax for similar activities. After considering the arguments and the previous order, the Member (Technical) found that the facts of the case were similar to the previous order and, based on precedent, concluded that the activity in question was not liable for Service Tax. Consequently, the appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed.

This judgment clarifies the scope of liability for Service Tax on Advertising Agency Services, emphasizing the distinction between different aspects of service provision such as designing and printing. It also underscores the importance of precedent in determining tax liability, ensuring consistency in decisions regarding similar cases.