9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. This issue stands already decided by this Tribunal in its order in the case of Adbur Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [2017 (5) TMI 101 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. Hence, the show cause notice had wrongly proposed the demand on the amount received for rendering services to print media. The adjudicating authorities below are held to have rightly set aside the said demand. The demand of Rs.3,99,142/- has been confirmed on the amount received as commission for rendering the services. It is observed that the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Adbur Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [2017 (5) TMI 101 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held that the commission received by the advertising agencies is chargeable to service t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to have erred while not granting the benefit of Notification No.33/2012 for the financial year 2016-17 also.
Conclusion - i) The services provided by the appellant fell under the negative list, thus, the demand proposed by the show cause notice set aside. ii) The show cause notice was time-barred due to the lack of evidence of malafide intention or suppression of facts by the appellant. iii) The authorities erred in not granting the appellant the benefit of exemption under Notification No.33/2012 for the threshold limit of Rs.10 Lakhs.
Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant had preferred an appeal against the said order before Commissioner (Appeals) which has been rejected vide order-in-appeal No.01/2023 dated 02.01.2023. Being aggrieved of the said rejection, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Mr. Jitin Singhal, ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Kuldeep Rawat, Authorised Representative for the respondent. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was under bona fide belief that the activity performed by the appellant is not taxable in as much as the same is covered in the negative list. Further, it is submitted that no positive evidence has been adduced by the department to prove that the appellant has suppressed the facts with an intention to evad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts, no case was made out for interfering with impugned Order-in-Original. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal. Present appeal is also prayed to be dismissed. 5. Having heard both the parties, I observe that the appellant is admittedly providing advertisement services to print-media. Those services fall under negative list in sub-clause (g) of section 66 (b) of Finance Act. This issue stands already decided by this Tribunal in its order in the case of Adbur Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi reported as 2017 (5) GSTL 334 (Tri.-Del.). Hence, I hold that the show cause notice had wrongly proposed the demand on the amount received for rendering services to print media. The adjudicating authorities below are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount received for rendering advertisement agency service to the print media except on the amount of commission. With respect to liability on the amount of commission to the appellant has accepted their liability, however, with the submission that they were under bonafide believe about their activity to be non-taxable and under the same belief they were under impression that even the amount of commission is the part of their non-taxable income. I observe that there is no evidence on record produced by the Department to prove that the appellant had malafide intention to evade tax on the amount of commission. The entire burden of the department remains un-discharged. The Hon'ble Apex Court has already held that the mere inaction or failur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority itself has held in para 22 of the impugned Order-in-Original that all the conditions of Notification No.33/2012 stands fulfilled in the instant case: "Thus, I find force in the arguments of the noticee to the effect that while computing the service liability, the exemption under Notification No.33 of 2012-ST, should have been considered and accordingly, I hold that the noticee is eligible for the exemption up to the aggregate value of services of Rs.10 Lakhs." 11. I further observe that threshold limit of Rs.10 Lakhs is to be seen for the previous financial year. The authorities below have given the benefit of Notification No.33/2012 for financial year 2017-18 as the threshold limit for previous year (2016-17) was less than 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
