9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 - ST/498 OF 2009 - 1451 OF 2009 - Dated:- 31-8-2009 - M.V. RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND P. KARTHIKEYAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Varadarajan for the Appellant. Ms. Sudha Koka for the Appellant. ORDER P. Karthikeyan, Technical Member. - This appeal and stay application have been filed by M/s. Jay N Jay Enterprises. Vide the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the order of the original authority as follows:- "Demand of service tax of Rs. 7,34,436 along with applicable interest, equal amount of penalty imposed under section 78 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice for the period prior to 1-5-2006. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that renting of space was taxable under advertising agency. In passing the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CCE C v. Zodiac Advertisers [2009] 20 STT 407. 5. In the appeal filed before us, the appellants have submitted that the lower authorities did not consider the submissions made by them and the various decisions of the Tribunal to the effect that activities such as hiring space for display of advertisement was not taxable under the category of advertising agency. It is also submitted that they had sought cross-examination of four witnesses whose statements had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing case laws cited before the Commissioner (Appeals):- (a) Prithvi Associates case (supra); (b) CCE v. Team UPD Ltd. [2005] 1 STT 88 (Chennai - CESTAT); (c) Rolls Royce Inds. (India) Ltd. v. CCE [2007] 6 STT 506 (Delhi - CESTAT); (d) CCE v. Azad Publications [2007] 8 STT 242 (Delhi - CESTAT). We find that, prima facie, the judicial authorities cited support the claim of the appellants that the impugned activity is not covered by the entry 'advertising agency'. The lower authority has not rendered any finding on the pleas based on these case laws cited. Moreover, the liability of the appellants was found on the basis of statements recorded from four witnesses, request for cross-examining whom, the Commissioner(Appeals) had denied. Such an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
