2020 (2) TMI 43 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - deductions from the gross receipt of the billing - Rate difference passed to print media - Agency billing - Commission/ discount passed to the customers. Rate difference passed to print media - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) found that though the Appellant had contended that the rate of communication varies and, therefore, this difference was liable to be deducted, but the Appellant had not produced any evidence which could show that during the disputed period print media had revised the rates. The Commissioner (Appeals) also found from a perusal of the reconciliation statement that the Appellant had claimed commission at the rate of 15 per cent only which meant that there was no change in the rate of commission. Agency billing - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) found that even if the Appellant was providing services through another advertising agency the amount received as it s share of commission will be included in the taxable value. Commission/discount passed to the customers - HELD THAT - The Appellate Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Appellant was providing service to the print media as an agent and so the amount received from the print media would be taxable for the purpose of discharge of service tax. Finding no merit in the contentions raised by Appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Appeal and upheld the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority - Appellant has not produced any evidence which can show that the print media had during the disputed period revised the rates, as a result of which there was a change in the rate of commission nor is there any serious challenge to the other findings. Thus, the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality - Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Failure of the Appellant to appear for the Appeal hearings despite repeated adjournments.
2. Allegations of short payment of duty and imposition of penalty.
3. Dismissal of Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on three main issues: rate difference passed to print media, agency billing, and commission/discount passed to customers.

Issue 1: Failure to Appear for Appeal Hearings
The Appeal was directed against an order dated 17 December, 2012, where the Appellant's Appeal against the order dated 30 March, 2012 was dismissed. Despite repeated adjournments due to the Appellant's requests, the matter was set for a final hearing on 21 January, 2020. However, no Counsel appeared to press the Appeal on the scheduled date.

Issue 2: Allegations of Short Payment of Duty and Penalty Imposition
The Appellant, an advertising agency, was alleged to have short-paid duty amounting to ?6,64,641 during an audit period. A show cause notice was issued, and the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, imposing an equal penalty. The Appellant then filed an Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the Appeal in the impugned order.

Issue 3: Dismissal of Appeal by Commissioner (Appeals)
The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Appeal after considering three main issues raised by the Appellant. Firstly, regarding the rate difference passed to print media, the Commissioner found no evidence of rate revision by the print media during the disputed period. Secondly, concerning agency billing, even if services were provided through another agency, the Appellant's commission share was included in the taxable value. Lastly, on the commission/discount passed to customers, the Commissioner held that the amount received from the print media was taxable for service tax discharge. As the Appellant failed to provide evidence supporting rate revision by print media or challenge the other findings, the Appeal was dismissed, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's order.

In conclusion, the Appellant's Appeal was dismissed as the Commissioner (Appeals) found no merit in the contentions raised, with no evidence presented to support claims of rate revision or challenge the findings. The decision was deemed legally sound, and the Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

← Previous Next →