9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but on the activity; neither registration nor wherewithal for rendering the service can substitute for classifying the activity within the definition of the service. There is no dispute that the appellant produces an entire program which is then submitted to the client for further use. These may well be in the nature of sub-contract by an advertising agency but is, yet, an independent one. There is no proposal to tax the activity as provision of ‘advertising agency service’; the appellant is not required to choose between alternate classification as that is the responsibility of the tax collector. Fitment within an alternative classification suffices to erase the proposal in the notice but cannot crystallise liability unless the alternative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may, at a stretch, be classified as 'advertising agency service' but, nevertheless, excluded from the liability of tax owing to discharge of the tax by the principal advertising agency. It is also his contention that clarification no. B-II/1/2000 TRU dated 9th July 2001 issued by Central Board of Excise & Customs moves them squarely out of the reach of taxability as usage of facility belonging to sound recording studio or agency is articulated as the intent of the new levy. Other submission such as 'cum-tax' benefit and limitation would arise consequent upon the finding on the taxability itself. 3. According to Learned Chartered Accountant, the impugned order is faulty inasmuch as the substantial portion of the finding are devoted to disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e discarded. Translated in the context of the circumstances of the case, the adjudicating authority was of the opinion that he did not have to go any further from the fact of the appellant being a production house with the facility of sound recording which rendered their clients clearly to be recipient sound recording service; ergo, the appellant is taxable. 6. It is seen from the records that the appellant had registered themselves under Service Tax Rules, 1994 as provider of sound recording service. However, that by itself is not sufficient to operate as a conclusive ground of taxability. Levy under Finance Act, 1994 is not on the persona but on the activity; neither registration nor wherewithal for rendering the service can substitute f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the client for further use. These may well be in the nature of sub-contract by an advertising agency but is, yet, an independent one. There is no proposal to tax the activity as provision of 'advertising agency service'; the appellant is not required to choose between alternate classification as that is the responsibility of the tax collector. Fitment within an alternative classification suffices to erase the proposal in the notice but cannot crystallise liability unless the alternative was also proposed in the notice. We are, therefore, not required to test the activity of the appellant for fitment under a different classification. 8. Every taxable service may be an end in itself to a consumer; there is however no bar on such a taxable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
