9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. 2. Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that they had failed to take registration as per Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994; that they had failed to pay service tax as applicable to the Central Government as per Section 68 read with Section 66 of the said Act and that they had failed to file prescribed returns as per Section 70 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisement tax. The Advertisement Tax is paid to Bangalore Mahanagar Palike (BMP) by M/s. Rex Advertisers. The same was included in the taxable value for purpose of discharging Service Tax by M/s. Empire Publicity Service and hence, the question of payment of Service Tax again does not arise. 3. Shri R. Raghuraman, learned advocate appeared for the appellant and Shri KS. Reddy, JDR for the Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A - 2004 (64) RLT 420 (CESTAT -Kol.)=2004 (174) ELT 65. 5. The learned JDR reiterated the Orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. It is seen that M/s.- Rex Advertisers paid an amount of Rs. 23,00,454/- during the disputed period to BMP as advertisement tax. It is seen that they are only procuring hoardings space from BMP. It is not clear as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... milar decision has been taken. Following the ratio of the above decision and Board's clarification, we hold that the act of procuring hoarding space from the Municipal Authorities for advertisement purposes in itself does not amount to taxable service under the category of Advertisement Agency. Moreover, in the present case, the amount paid by the appellants to BMP appears to have been included in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
