9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... affic sign boards, centre median grills and barricades as required by traffic police. A part of the demand of service tax relates to fabrication and erection of hoardings for the display of advertisements of their private clients. In respect of the preparation and erection of banners, sign boards etc., for the traffic police, the appellants had billed the sponsors (owners of shops/business establishments in the neighbourhood of the sites of the said structures) and collected charges for the cost of material including painting as also the cost of labour. In some cases, cost of re-painting and maintenance was also collected from the sponsors. In respect of the hoardings, the appellants collected rental from their clients whose advertisements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Chennai)] (ii) Rex Advertisers v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2006 (2) S.T.R. 330 (Tri.-Bang.)] (iii) Zodiac Advertisers v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin [2006 (3) S.T.R. 538 (Tri.-Bang.)]. Counsel has also referred to Trade Notice No. 345/4/97-TRU dated 16-8-1999 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata. Learned SDR has heavily relied on the statement given by the proprietor of 'Market Chase Advertising' on 18-12- 2002 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, wherein he had stated inter alia that he was engaged in preparation of traffic grills, traffic signals, bus shelters, traffic umbrellas, hoardings and traffic signages containing advertisements and that he had collected advertising and prep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s noted by the Tribunal in the said cases and it was held that, unless these aspects of an advertisement were shown to exist, it cannot be said that any advertisement was made or prepared. In this view of the matter, the appellants cannot be held to have satisfied the requirements of 'advertising agency' defined under the Act. As learned SDR has not questioned the finality of the decisions cited by the counsel, I have got to follow those decisions. 4. The explanation given by the appellants with regard to the statement of the proprietor seems to be cogent inasmuch as the facts stated by them in their reply to the show-cause notice are apparently supported by the documentary evidence available on record, consisting of the specimen b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
