2010 (2) TMI 449 - AT - Service Tax

Advertising Agency Service - the show-cause notice, the nature of activity carried on was shown drawing the attention of the appellant that such activity amounts to taxable service under the category of Advertising Agency . Lower authorities decide the matter against assessee. Held that - activity that was carried out by assessee did not relieve him from liability to pay service tax under the Act. Thus appeal of assessee was to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues:

1. Failure of the appellant to respond to notices served.
2. Tax liability on the appellant for taxable services provided under the category of 'Advertising Agency'.
3. Default of the appellant in complying with legal procedures and abusing the process of law.

Issue 1: Failure to Respond to Notices:

The judgment highlights the repeated failure of the appellant to respond to notices served, despite multiple opportunities granted for a fair hearing. The notices were returned unserved, and even when another opportunity was granted, the appellant did not appear. The tribunal proceeded with the hearing based on the evidence on record due to the absence of the appellant.

Issue 2: Tax Liability for Advertising Services:

The show-cause notice identified the nature of the appellant's activities as falling under the taxable service category of 'Advertising Agency'. The appellant was informed of the liability arising from such activities and the requirement to pay service tax along with registration. The authorities, including the Appellate Authority, found the appellant in default and leniency shown earlier did not serve any useful purpose due to the appellant's absence. The tribunal examined the points raised by the revenue and concluded that the appellant's activities did not exempt them from tax liability. The tribunal dismissed the appeal based on these findings.

Issue 3: Default and Abuse of Process of Law:

The tribunal considered the appellant's actions as defaulting in complying with legal procedures and abusing the process of law. Despite the observations made by the Appellate Authority, the tribunal found that the appellant's activities did not justify dismissing the tax liability. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's appeal was to be dismissed on all accounts, including the default in complying with legal procedures and abusing the process of law.

Overall, the judgment emphasizes the importance of responding to legal notices, the liability for taxable services provided, and the consequences of defaulting in legal proceedings and abusing the process of law.