9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se from producing the evidence which he was called to produce by the adjudicating authority or where the appellant was prevented before the adjudicating authority in evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal etc. Accordingly the Commissioner (Appeals) refused to admit evidence relating to the contention of the appellant that they were only renting out the space which they themselves rented from the Railways and were not providing any advertising agency service. - in the interest of justice additional evidence in support of the appellants' aforesaid contention should be admitted - matter remanded back - Decided in favor of assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No. 269 of 2009 - Final Order No. ST/A/51390/2015-CU(DB) - Dated:- 9-4-2015 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking space from Railways on rent and giving the same on rent to various persons but they were not engaged in providing any service connected with making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement. It is seen that in the case of CCE vs. Azad Publication 2004 (167) ELT 59 (Tri. Del.) it was held that permitting display of advertisement on its site and raising bill for realising rental charges was not covered under advertising agency service. Similarly, in the case of CCE vs. The Incoda 2004 (174) ELT 65 (Tri. Kol), it was held that respondent hired space in Metro Railway coaches and inter-alia provided space to its client for advertising and such activity was not tantamount to an act of advertising agency. Thus renting of space w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y or where the appellant was prevented before the adjudicating authority in evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal etc. Accordingly the Commissioner (Appeals) refused to admit evidence relating to the contention of the appellant that they were only renting out the space which they themselves rented from the Railways and were not providing any advertising agency service. 5. We have given due consideration to the appellants' contention and we are of the view that in the interest of justice additional evidence in support of the appellants' aforesaid contention should be admitted. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and remand the case to Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction that the additional evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
