2011 (1) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the work related to conceptualization and writing the contents of advertisement such as advertising films, radio, print ads which M/s. Ambience D'Arcy ('Ambience' for short) use for production of final advertisement material for its various clients. From May, 2001 to June, 2003 the appellant applied for service tax registration on 31-7-2002. The department initiated proceedings against the appellant for recovering service tax relating to advertising consultant. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,70,607/- and imposed penalties upon the appellant under Sections 75, 75A, 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the adjudicating authority's order the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The appellant have also cited the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of BBR (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III 2006 (4) S.T.R. 269 and Oikos v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III - 2007 (5) S.T.R. 229. 5. The contention of the Revenue is that relationship between Ambience and the appellant is that of principal-to-principal basis and as per the definition of 'advertising agency' advertising consultants are also covered under the inclusive definition of the service provided by the advertising agency. The learned JDR submits that the appellant is working on a retainership basis and she gets a fixed remuneration per month and, therefore, the appellant is not an employee of Ambience. The lower auth....