9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the appellants have surrendered the registration. After a gap of three to four years, Revenue was the opinion, from the information obtained from the Income Tax Department, that the appellants have provided services to various clients during the period 01.10.2006 to 31.03.2011; however, the appellants deposited only Rs. 54,66,322 as service tax during the period 07.07.2008 to 31.03.2011 and Rs. 14,88,163 during the period October, 2006 to March, 2008; thus, Revenue came to the conclusion that the appellants were required to pay balance service tax of Rs. 47,06,819. A show cause notice dated 23.04.2012 was issued to the appellants demanding service tax of Rs. 47,06,819 along with interest and penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... banners without any designing, visualizing, conceptualizing are not covered under advertising agency services as explained in the CBEC circulars F. No. 345/4/97-TRU dated 16.08.1999; it is pertinent to note that Kolkata Commissionerate issued a trade notice no. 99/GL-90/CE/PRO/CAL-11/99 dated 16.09.1999. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhiren Chemical Industries 2002 (139) ELT 3 SC that Departmental Circulars are binding on the officers. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of advertising club Vs. CBEC 2001 (131) ELT 35 (Mad.), while deciding the constitutional validity of the levy of the service tax held that mere display of advertisement does not attract levy of service tax. He also relies on Star Neon Sign - CCE 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t may be given. He submits that the appellant had bona fide belief that no service tax is payable by them; the show cause notice is issued on the basis of 26AS statements and therefore extended period cannot be invoked. He relies, for these issues, on the following: (v) Swastik Tin works 1986 (25) Swastik Tin works 1986 (25) 98 (Tribunal) 98 (Tribunal) (vi) Sandoz India Ltd. 1980 (6) ELT 696 (Bom.) Sandoz India Ltd. 1980 (6) ELT 696 (Bom.) (vii) Colgate Colgate PalmolivePalmolive ((India) Ltd. 1980 (6) ELT 268 (Bom.) India) Ltd. 1980 (6) ELT 268 (Bom.) (viii) New Polymer Industries 1991 (52) ELT 145 (Tribunal)New Polymer Industries 1991 (52) ELT 145 (Tribunal) (ix) Raymonds Ltd. 2005 (189) ELT 345 (Tri.Raymonds Ltd. 2005 (189) ELT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /or printing banners which were given to them by the clients. They had no role in the design and conceptualization of the advertisement. It has been held in the cases cited above, that mere preparing the advertising material does not come under the ambit of advertising and therefore, the activity undertaken by the appellants cannot be held to be "advertisement agency service". 8. We also find that the show cause notice has been issued invoking the extended period. However, no positive act of suppression, mis-statement etc. on the part of the appellants has been brought on record. Further, the show cause notice has been issued on the basis of the data available with the Income Tax Department in the form of TDS details and 26AS statements. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
