2009 (5) TMI 343 - AT - Service Tax

Non-speaking order - agreement with various persons such as Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, pursuant to which they obtained the right to sell space for purposes of advertisement through display boards sign ages etc. - Proceedings under Advertising Agency service were initiated earlier and dropped on the same issue by department but such submissions not examined in impugned order - the impugned order does not deal with merits of the case at all - it is seen that the impugned order is not at all a speaking order. In view of this, we have no other option but to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication. In the de novo adjudication the Commissioner (Appeals) should give his finding on each of the contentions raised by the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-appeal 65/2008 ST dated 4-4-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax (Appeals) Cochin.
2. Liability for service tax under the category of advertising agency services.
3. Rejection of contentions by the Original Authority and confirmation of demand.
4. Lack of examination of key points in the impugned order.
5. Request for relief on grounds of time bar.
6. Need for a speaking order and remand for de novo adjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-appeal 65/2008 ST dated 4-4-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax (Appeals) Cochin. The appellant, M/s. Venpakal Advertisers Trivendraum, held Service tax registration for advertising agency services and sale of space for advertisement services. The Revenue issued a show cause notice demanding service tax and education cess for a specific period, which was confirmed by the Original Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The appellants contended that they should not be liable for service tax under the category of advertisement agency services as they only had the right to sell space for advertisements at designated locations. They highlighted a previous decision where similar proceedings were initiated and dropped. However, the impugned order did not address these arguments, focusing instead on the demand for service tax without proper examination of the merits.

3. The impugned order lacked a detailed analysis of the contentions raised by the appellants, leading to a conclusion upholding the demand for service tax and interest. The order did not provide reasoning challenging the levy of service tax for the services rendered by the appellants to various clients. Additionally, the penalties were upheld due to the perceived suppression of taxable services in the returns.

4. Due to the inadequacy of the impugned order as a speaking order, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to provide findings on each contention raised by the appellant within three months from the date of the Tribunal's order. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of by way of remand for further examination and decision-making.

By remanding the case for a more detailed examination and decision-making process, the Tribunal aimed to ensure a fair and comprehensive adjudication of the issues raised by the appellants regarding their liability for service tax under the advertising agency services category.