2024 (2) TMI 196 - AT - Service Tax

Advertising agency liable for service tax only on commission, not entire invoice values

M/s. AD-inn Innovative Advertisers (Mr. P. Ramesh) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Madurai Commissionerate,

M/s. AD-inn Innovative Advertisers (Mr. P. Ramesh) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Madurai Commissionerate, - TMI Issues Involved:1. Taxability of services rendered by Ad-Inn under the category of 'Advertising Agency' as defined under Section 65(3) of the Finance Act.2. Admissibility of CENVAT credit taken by Ad-Inn in respect of broadcasting advertisements.3. Invocation of the extended period of limitation for the demand of service tax.Summary:Issue 1: Taxability of Services Rendered by Ad-InnThe appellant, Ad-Inn Advertising, was engaged in rendering taxable services under the category of 'Advertising Agency' and paid service tax on certain transactions while paying VAT on others. The Department contended that the nature of transactions was inseparable and involved both preparation and display of advertisement materials, thus falling under the 'Advertising Agency' category as per Section 65(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal examined various judicial precedents, including the definition of 'Advertising Agency' and concluded that mere manufacturing of products as per instructions without any creativity or conceptualization does not constitute 'Advertising Agency' services. The Tribunal held that if VAT was paid on the value indicated in the invoice, it tantamounts to a sale on which no service tax is leviable. Consequently, the demand for service tax on transactions where VAT was paid was not sustainable.Issue 2: Admissibility of CENVAT CreditThe Department disallowed CENVAT credit availed by the appellant on services such as broadcasting, arguing that these were not input services for Ad-Inn. The Tribunal held that the services of broadcasting agencies were indeed input services for the appellant, as they were directly utilized in providing output services. The Tribunal disagreed with the Department's view that the appellant acted as a pure agent and thus was not eligible for CENVAT credit. It was concluded that the appellant was entitled to avail the credit of service tax paid on input services.Issue 3: Extended Period of LimitationThe appellant argued that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as the Department was already aware of the facts through earlier show cause notices. The Tribunal referred to Supreme Court judgments in Nizam Sugar Factory and ECE Industries Limited, which established that when facts are known to the Department, subsequent notices alleging suppression are not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the impugned show cause notices were issued in contradiction to judicial discipline and set aside the orders on the grounds of limitation.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, holding that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax on transactions where VAT was paid, was entitled to avail CENVAT credit on input services, and that the demands were time-barred. The decision provided consequential reliefs to the appellant as per the law.