9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 146 - AT - Service TaxAdvertisement Agency Service - activity in respect of making, preparation, display or exhibition etc of advertisement - Held that - In the adjudication order dated 15.6.2011 there is a specific finding that the appellant was not engaged in making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order also held that the appellants are engaged in collecting advertisement from Mulay Group of Companies and forwarding the same to the desired newspaper. Hence this activity shows that the appellants are engaged in the activity which is connected with the activity of advertisement published. As per Section 65 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994 advertisement agency means any person engaged in providing any service connected with the making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement and includes on advertising consultant . A reading of the definition of advertising agency shows that a person should be engaged in providing any service connected with the making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement. The admitted fact is that the appellants are not undertaking any activity connected with the making, preparation, display etc and the appellants are only collecting the advertising and the same is forwarded to various newspapers for publication. decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
Interpretation of the definition of "advertising agency" under Section 65(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. Analysis: The appellant, a company associated with Mulay Group of Companies, Aurangabad, filed appeals against demands confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that the activities undertaken by the appellant fell under the category of an Advertisement Agency as defined under Section 65(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant's main activity was to serve as an agent for advertising in newspapers by collecting advertisement proforma through Mulay Group of Companies and forwarding them to desired newspapers. The appellant argued that they were not engaged in activities related to making, preparation, display, or exhibition of advertisements, and therefore, not providing services falling under the scope of an advertising agency. The Revenue relied on a statement from Mr. Manohar Pathrekar, where he mentioned the presence of an independent creative and advertising wing under the appellant's name, specializing in high-quality art work, print, and audiovisual media. However, the adjudication order and the Commissioner (Appeals) order did not find the appellant engaged in making, preparation, display, or exhibition of advertisements. The definition of "advertising agency" under Section 65(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 requires a person to be engaged in providing services connected with the making, preparation, display, or exhibition of advertisements. Since the appellant was only collecting and forwarding advertisements to newspapers without engaging in these activities, the court found merit in the appellant's contention that they were not providing services falling under the category of an advertising agency. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The court also mentioned that the appellants were entitled to consequential relief, if any, in accordance with the law.
|
