TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") and the order dated 2.7.2007, Annexure A.5 passed by the adjudicating authority, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether under the factual matrix where the adjudicating authority extended the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 by holding that the action of the appellant in context of discharging the liability for paying service tax was bonafide, the action of the revenue in invoking the extended period of limitation under section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 Act is justified? ii) Whether action of the respondents is bonafide and justified for creating demand of service tax merely on the basis of turnover figures as reflected in the balance sheets w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the balance sheets, this was found to be Rs. 7,98,22,231.46 for the same period. Scrutiny of ST3 returns filed by the appellant revealed that it had declared total amount billed for the taxable services provided during the period from 1.4.2001 to 30.9.2005 as Rs. 1,18,18,348.57 and had paid service tax amounting to Rs. 1,26,584.39 and education cess amounting to Rs. 690/-. The appellant had short paid service tax amounting to Rs. 7,11,804.78 and Rs. 3692.90 towards the services of release of advertisement. The appellant was issued show cause notice dated 16.10.2006, Annexure A.3 which was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise Chandigarh who confirmed the demand of service tax and also imposed penalties vide order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) wherein it was held that the amounts received as cash discount and incentives were not liable to service tax since no service was provided by the advertising agency to the media, the Commissioner (Appeals) recorded that the incentives or cash discounts shown as commission in the balance sheet of the appellant were not liable to service tax. Aggrieved by the order, the revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal while reversing the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 9.4.2013, Annexure A.9 recorded that the assessee was not assessed to service tax on any transaction involving sale of space for advertisement in print media. It was concluded that the activity of the appellant-assessee fell within the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ternet, etc. 7. It is the admitted case that the assessee was not assessed to tax by the adjudication order in respect of any transaction involving sale of space for advertisement in the print media. 8. The assessee is admittedly a commercial concern engaged in providing advertisement services to a client, in relation to advertisement i.e. in relation to sale of space or time and was not charged for sale of space for advertisement in the print media. He receives requisitions for arranging advertisements either directly by an advertiser or from another advertising agency and is also engaged on occasions in passing on material received from an advertiser directly without any value addition, to the advertising medium or in some instances by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X .....
2001-02
1,53,71,255.12
2002-03
1,77,07,149.35
2003-04
2,71,55,528.86
2004-05
93,18,097.73
Are these the correct figures as per your balance sheets?
Answer: Yes, these are the figures of turn over of our
advertising business as shown in balance sheets of our firm."
Thus, service tax amounting to Rs. 7,11,804.78 and Education cess of Rs. 3692.90 for the period 1.4.2001 to 31.12.2005 had been rightly imposed on the assessee-appellant besides recovery of interest on the confirmed demand.
6. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this Court. Thus, no substantial question of law arises and the appeal is hereby dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|