9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esign the advertisements for their clients to be approached by them but for said advertisement to be displayed by the appellant at the sites to be constructed by him under the agreement with the MCD in his favour. Thus those two companies are rather the sub contractors of the appellant - the appellant has taken the plea that those payments are made in lieu of renting the property to both the advertising agency companies to display the advertisements of their clients but the perusal of the invoice of appellant falsifies the said submission as those amounts are mentioned to have been received for displaying the advertisements - The argument of the appellant to that effect is, therefore not sustainable. Levy of the proportionate interest and the penalties - Held that:- It is an apparent and admitted fact that the appellant has discharged his liability for the period 2007-2008 and 2010-11 qua the amount received for rendering the services of renting of immovable property but only after the issuance off the show cause notice to him that too without the payment of interest. From Section 75, of the Act payment of interest is a mandate in case there is delay in discharge of the tax liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the confirmed demands. 2. We have heard Shri. Anil Kumar Khanna ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri G.R. Singh ld. DR for the Department. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that vide the Show Cause Notices various allegations were leveled against the appellant one of them was of wrongly availing cenvat credit on the construction material used for the construction a per a agreement in their favour by the government authorities. The said demand has already been dropped vide the order under challenge and that Department has not filed an appeal thereof. The order to that extent has attained finality. The findings are prayed to be upheld. With respect to the demand of service tax, it has been submitted that the authorities below have wrongly held the appellant to be a sub contractor while fastening upon him the said liability. It is also submitted that the CBEC Circular no. 96/7/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007 has wrongly been relied upon retrospectively. The ld. Advocate has relied upon Suchitra Components Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Guntur 2007 (208) ELT 321 (S.C.) to impress upon that only beneficial circulars can be given retrospective effect. The impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sements to be so published/ displayed. The case of appellant is that since the appellant is not a advertising agency and has not rendered the advertisement agency service which otherwise has been rendered by M/s. Prime Site and M/s. Grphis Ads, neither he is the sub contractor of both the said companies as such appellant is not liable to pay the service tax on that account. 7. We observe from these admitted facts that that the findings of the authorities below holding the appellant as the sub contractor are erroneous on the face of the record. In fact the appellant contracted with both the advertising agency to arrange or prepare or design the advertisements for their clients to be approached by them but for said advertisement to be displayed by the appellant at the sites to be constructed by him under the agreement with the MCD in his favour. Thus those two companies are rather the sub contractors of the appellant. 8. The appellant took the plea that they did not charge any service tax on the invoices raised on the advertising agencies in the year 2006-07 as no service tax was payable in that year as the services of advertising were provided by both the said agencies to thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been received for displaying the advertisements. Thus irrespectively the advertisement were prepared by M/s. Prime Site and M/s. Graphis Ads for their clients but those are displayed by the appellant for which he has taken an amount, the appellant is equally a service provider to that extent as already held above and the amount received is the gross amount for calculating the service tax liability of the appellant. We accordingly, are of the opinion that the adjudicating authority below have rightly confirmed the said demand. We find no infirmity in the order to that extent accordingly we hereby confirm the demand. Even if the circular of 23.08.2007 is not taken into consideration the above discussion still holds good. The argument of the appellant to that effect is, therefore not sustainable. The authority relied upon is also not applicable for the said reason. 11. Now coming to the aspect of levy of the proportionate interest and the penalties, it is an apparent and admitted fact that the appellant has discharged his liability for the period 2007-2008 and 2010-11 qua the amount received for rendering the services of renting of immovable property but only after the issuance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
