9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Vice President and T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) [Order Per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]-1. This appeal has been filed against order-in-original No.5/RK/2006 dt. 15.2.2006 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi. 2. The appellants render taxable service under the category of "advertising agency service". They entered into contract with their clients for providing advertisement agency service. The appellants render advertising services to various clients in the form of creative agency wherein they create advertisement by themselves or their third party media agency wherein they do media printing and /or buying for advertisement to be published in print/ electronic media. They were receiving 15% agency commission from authoriz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d duty liability on the gross amount received from their clients. In this case, the various media are not clients of the appellant namely, the advertising agency. If the media gives discount of 15% to the appellant, that amount has nothing to do with the gross amount received by the appellant from their clients to whom they rendered advertisement services. Therefore, there is no logic in demanding service tax on the discount of 15% received by the appellant from print media. Identical issue was the subject matter of the Tribunal in the case of Euro RSCG Advertising Ltd. Vs. CCST, Bangalore reported in 2007 (7) S.T.R. 277 (Tribunal)= (2007) 9 STJ 56 (CESTAT Bangalore) wherein the issue was decided in favour of the appellants. The fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strated that they have not received any amount from the media. They got only a discount from them. Perhaps the word "commission" is misleading. There is actually no evidence that the said amount has been received by the appellant from the media. In any case, any amount received by the service provider from his client only is liable to service tax and not amounts received from others. The adjudicating authority has neither considered the factual position nor the legality of the entire issue. The impugned order 12/2005, dated 27.4.2005 has no merits. Since there is no service tax liability, there is no question of imposing penalty and demanding interest. Hence, we set aside the same and allow the appeal with consequential relief. 5. Moreo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
