9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 736 - AT - Service TaxNon-payment of Service Tax - taxability of reimbursement of advertisement charges from their clients - period from October 2007 to January 2010 - HELD THAT - This Bench in M/S. ABC CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 1114 - CESTAT CHENNAI has, after following the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VERSUS M/S. SANGAMITRA SERVICES AGENCY 2013 (7) TMI 862 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , set aside the demand, holding that it can be seen from the advertisement charges, which was incurred to be a one-time occasion and was only expenses incurred on behalf of the client which are reimbursed on actual basis. We therefore follow the decision in the in the case of Sangamitra Services Agency and hold that the demand is unsustainable. Thus, the issue is no more res integra since the same has been decided in the appellant's own case for a different period by this very Bench. Further, the Revenue has also not made out any case for deviating from the above order. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
The appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Chennai regarding the taxability of reimbursement of advertisement charges. Issue 1: Taxability of Reimbursement of Advertisement Charges The appellant, a 'manpower recruitment or supply agency,' received reimbursement of advertisement charges from clients but did not pay Service Tax on it. The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice proposing to demand Service Tax. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand in the Order-in-Original. The first appellate authority confirmed the demand but recalculated it at a lower amount. The main contention was the taxability of reimbursement of advertisement charges. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the appellant's own case for a different period where a similar issue was settled. The Tribunal noted that in that case, it was held that the advertisement charges were reimbursed on an actual basis and were not part of the taxable service provided by the appellant. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in another case, the Tribunal set aside the demand, stating that the appellant was engaged in manpower recruitment services, not advertisement services. The Tribunal found no grounds to deviate from the previous decision and allowed the appeal with consequential benefits. (Order pronounced in the open court on 04.08.2023)
|
