9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing telecast fees with service tax, who pay service tax on the telecast fees under 'Broadcasting Service'. The applicant availed service tax paid on telecast fees as Cenvat Credit as input service credit. The T.V. Channels/broadcaster allowed the applicant to use commercial advertisements to the extent of 240 seconds on Free Commercial Time (FCT) out of 30 minutes. The applicant is selling the FCT to the advertising agency for broadcasting the advertisements and paying service tax under the category of 'Sale of Space or Time for Advertisement'. The applicant utilized Cenvat credit of service tax paid on telecast fees for payment of service tax on output service 'Sale of Space or Time for Advertisement'. 3. The Cenvat Credit of Rs.4,68,55,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vertising agency and the appellant collects fixed cost, variable cost. The appellant had paid service tax on these amounts under the category of 'Sale of Space or Time for Advertisement Service'. The ST-3 return filed by the appellant and the statement for the period April 2006 to September 2997 clearly indicates the inclusion of fixed cost in the taxable value for the purpose of service tax. This was also pointed out before the Commissioner of Service Tax and the same was not taken into consideration. The fixed cost ie. broadcasting charges recovered from the client has been taken into account in the value as reflected in the ST-3 return and service tax was calculated accordingly. d) The appellant pays service tax to the broadcaster on te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely as the appellants have made out a good prima facie case on merit. 4. We have also heard Shri V.V. Hariharan, Ld. JCDR appearing for the department. He has no serious opposition to the prayer of waiver of pre-deposit and he fairly states that the contention regarding inclusion of fixed cost in the taxable value made by the appellants requires consideration which does not appear to have been taken into account in the impugned order. 5. In view of the above, since the appellants have made out a good prima facie case on merit, and there is no serious contest from the department for the grant of waiver of pre-deposit, we allow waiver of predeposit and stay the recovery proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. 5. We find that the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
