2006 (11) TMI 22 - AT - Service Tax

Advertising agency Service tax Alleged that appellant activity were liable for service tax and accordingly penalty were imposed After taking into consideration the prior decision , decision made in favour of appellants

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of service tax against the appellants and imposition of penalties for activities undertaken in India on behalf of a foreign principal, whether the activities amount to services provided by an advertising agency.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides, noted that the lower authorities confirmed service tax against the appellants and imposed penalties based on the activities undertaken by them in India for their principal in Hong Kong. The authorities argued that these activities constituted services provided by an advertising agency. The services included providing information to foreign companies, arranging the sale of advertising and sponsorship on channels, collecting advertisement materials from advertisers in India, collecting payments, and providing information to potential advertisers.

For a better understanding, the Tribunal referred to a precedent decision involving Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Star India (P) Ltd., where similar services were provided under an agreement with a foreign company. The activities included soliciting and booking advertisements, providing advertising materials meeting technical specifications, invoicing, collecting payments, submitting reports, conducting credit investigations, providing advisory services, and promoting the standing of the television advertising medium. The Tribunal in that case found that the agreement did not entail the preparation of advertisements, thus not attracting service tax.

Based on the precedent decision and other relevant cases, the Tribunal concluded that the activities undertaken by the present appellants were similar to those in the Zee Telefilms case, where it was held that the activities did not warrant the levy of service tax. The Tribunal also cited a case involving Siticable Network P. Ltd., which clarified that flashing or displaying prepared advertisements is considered broadcasting service, subject to service tax. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the disputed issue regarding the imposition of service tax on the activities undertaken by the appellants in India for their foreign principal was settled in favor of the appellant based on previous decisions and precedents. The judgment highlighted that the activities did not fall under the category of services provided by an advertising agency, thus exempting them from service tax liability.