9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1027 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - advertising agency services or not - printing of flags with the advertising material - time limitation - HELD THAT - Mere payment of Service Tax in respect of such supply to M/s.Vodafone, who were not disputing the same, would not make the appellant s activity as taxable. The issue is required to be decided independently - Tribunal in the case of M/S AVON AWNING (PROPRIETOR LATE NAND KISHORE CHADDHA, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. KRISHNA CHADDHA) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE S. TAX, GHAZIABAD 2016 (10) TMI 683 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD has held that production of design given by the client on chosen material such as cloth, PVC sheet etc. would not amount to providing any service taxable under the category of advertising agency. The issue stands fully covered by the said decision of the Tribunal. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The balance sheet and profit and loss account has been held to be public documents by various decisions and it stands concluded that when the income arising from various activities stand reflected in the said public documents, it cannot be said that there was any suppression or misstatement on the part of the assessee so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Whether the printing of flags with advertising material amounts to providing advertising agency services. 2. Whether the demand for Service Tax on the sale and supply of printed flags and glow-sign boards is justified. 3. Whether the demand for Service Tax on miscellaneous income and GTA services is valid. 4. Whether the demand raised by invoking the longer period is sustainable. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant argued that their activity of printing flags did not constitute advertising agency services as they merely printed the material provided by clients without any creative input. The Tribunal referenced a previous case where it was held that producing designs given by clients on chosen material does not amount to providing taxable services under the category of advertising agency. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's activity did not fall under the definition of advertising agency services. Issue 2: The demand for Service Tax on the sale and supply of printed flags and glow-sign boards was challenged by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that while Service Tax was paid to M/s. Vodafone, other companies did not consider the printing and supply of flags as advertising agency services. The Tribunal clarified that paying Service Tax to one client did not automatically make the activity taxable. The demand for Service Tax on this service was found to be unjustified. Issue 3: The appellant was issued a show cause notice for Service Tax on miscellaneous income and GTA services received on a reverse charge basis. The Tribunal found that the demand for these services was not contested, and no issues were raised regarding them. Therefore, the demand for Service Tax on miscellaneous income and GTA services was upheld. Issue 4: The demand raised by invoking the longer period was a crucial aspect of the case. The Tribunal held that the demand was time-barred as it was based on figures from the appellant's balance sheet and profit and loss account, which are considered public documents. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that if services rendered were reflected in public documents and there was no evidence of mala fide intentions, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order as the demands confirmed by invoking the longer period were not sustainable. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal due to the unsustainable nature of the demands confirmed by invoking the longer period.
|
