TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal modifies service tax demand to Rs. 37,589, penalties imposed</h1> <h3>FEBIN ADVERTISERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT</h3> The Tribunal modified the demand to Rs. 37,589 for service tax, with penalties imposed for failure to obtain service tax registration and under Section 78 ... Merely allowing space for advertisement is not coverable under Advertising Agency Service if they have not conceptualized, visualized or designed the advertisement – penalty imposable for collecting the amount as tax even without taking out service tax registration Issues:1. Taxability of collected rentals for hoardings used for advertisement purposes.2. Applicability of penalties for failure to pay service tax.Analysis:1. The appellants collected rentals for hoardings used for advertisement purposes. The Revenue contended that this activity falls under taxable advertisement services as per the Finance Act, 1994. The original authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,49,225/- along with interest and imposed penalties totaling Rs. 1,92,225. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellants argued that they merely provided spaces for advertisement display and did not engage in designing the advertisements, thus not falling under the Advertising Agency definition. The Tribunal found that while the penalties were excessive, the appellants did collect Rs. 37,589/- as service tax from clients but failed to remit it to the Government. Therefore, the demand was modified to Rs. 37,589/- towards service tax, and penalties were imposed for failure to obtain service tax registration and under Section 78 of the Act.2. The learned Consultant for the appellants cited several Tribunal decisions to support their case. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not adequately address the appellants' contentions and case laws. While the entire tax amount and penalties imposed were not sustainable, it was evident that the appellants collected Rs. 37,589/- as service tax but did not remit it to the Government. Consequently, the demand was modified to this amount. Penalties were imposed for failing to obtain service tax registration and under Section 78 of the Act. Additionally, interest was to be paid on the confirmed tax amount till the date of payment. The appellants had already deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- towards their liabilities, which could be adjusted. The appeal was disposed of with the above terms.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
