9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the services are being rendered to Govt of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, did not pay any Service Tax. The Department issued show-cause notice on 04.03.2011 by invoking the extended period provisions and demanded the service tax for the period 2007-2008 to 2008-09 amounting to Rs 5,48,06,153/-. The allegation of the department was that appellant was providing advertisement services and no Service Tax was discharged by the appellant during the period under dispute. After due process, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand. Being agitated by the impugned Order-in-Original the appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the service provided by them would fall under the catego ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their comments on various points raised in the letter. 4. He further submits that in respect of the same work of IMPACT, one more party Walia & Co of Delhi were also awarded the contract by the Govt of Andhra Pradesh. In case of this appellant, the Department initiated proceedings against them in New Delhi on the ground that they have provided the service of 'Public Relation Services.' At the adjudication level, Order-in-Original No. 44/GB/2011 dated 28.11.2011 was passed wherein the Adjudicating Authority had dropped the proceedings. Being agitated by this Order-in-Original, Department had filed an appeal before CESTAT Delhi. The Hon'ble Tribunal in this case as reported at CESTAT Delhi Vs Walia & Co [2017(3)GSTL 408 (Tri-Del)] has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ' This being so, when different interpretations have been given for the same service by different wings of the Revenue Department, he submits that the appellant cannot be fastened with the allegation of suppression with an intent to evade the Service Tax payment. Accordingly he submits that the demand for extended period is liable to be set aside on account of limitation also. 6. The learned AR submits that the services rendered by the appellants would fall under the category of 'Advertising' only as can be seen from the definition of Advertising Services in terms of Section 65 of the Finance Act 1994. Therefore, he says that appellant's submission that the services rendered by them would fall under the category of Business Exhibition Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 009 making their stand clear. The Show- Cause Notice fails to clarify as to what took them more than 1.5 years to issue the Show-Cause notice on 04.03.2011. In the Show-Cause Notice there is absolutely no mention of any earlier demand raised by the Department on 15.07.2009. The Show-Cause notice also does not specify as to what made the Department change its mind from classifying the service as Advertisement Services when CAG Audit has pointed out that the service would fall under the category of 'Public Relations Management Services'. On an identical issue in the case of another party Walia & Co who was also awarded the contract by Govt of A.P. in respect of the same program, the Department has proceeded against them at Delhi on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
