2009 (8) TMI 502 - AT - Service Tax

Advertising agency s services- The assessee was engaged in erection of hoarding and renting them to customers for exhibiting their advertisements. It also erected hoardings and sold them. The adjudicating authority demanded service tax from the assessee under the category of Advertising agency . Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee contended that activity such as hiring of space for display of advertisement was taxable w.e.f. 1.5.2006 and therefore impugned activity was not taxable for period prior to 1.5.2006. The Commissioner (Appeals), confirm the demand. Held that- the order could not be passed in accordance with the law thus the matter is remand back for passing a speaking order after following the principal of natural justice

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, consisting of M.V. Ravindran and P. Karthikeyan, members, heard an appeal and stay application filed by M/s. Jay N Jay Enterprises against a demand for service tax, interest, and penalties imposed under the Finance Act, 1994. The period of dispute was 1999-2000 to 2004-05. The appellants were engaged in erecting and renting hoardings for advertising purposes. They argued that their activities were not covered under the definition of 'advertising agency'. The Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, citing a judgment by the High Court of Kerala. The appellants claimed that the lower authorities did not consider their submissions or allow them to cross-examine witnesses. They presented several case laws in support of their position. The Tribunal found that the impugned order was passed without due consideration of the appellants' arguments and supporting case laws. The Commissioner (Appeals) had also denied the appellants the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, rendering the order legally unsound. As a result, the