2014 (3) TMI 508

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... applicant. As such, both of them have gone through the brief and argued the case. 2. In this case, there is a demand against the applicant for service tax not paid during the period 01.07.2006 to 31.03.2009 for an amount of Rs.99,64,532/- as tax and further an amount of Rs.2,34,067/- towards denial of Cenvat credit. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the demands are mainly under the following categories:- (i) the first component of the demand is on the commission retained by the applicant while acting as an agent for procuring advertisements for newspapers and other print media. Though, the applicant charges to the persons approaching him according to the rates specified by the media, out of such receipts 15% is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e also submits that the entire demand is time-barred because the Show Cause Notice was issued on November, 2011. In this regard, he relied on the decisions of Kanta Incorporation Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur reported in 2011 (24) S.T.R.288 (Tri.-Del.) and Fifty Estate Communications (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai reported in 2008 (12) S.T.R.352 (Tri.-Chennai). He prays that the appeal may be admitted without any pre-deposit. 4. Opposing the prayer the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue submits that service tax is payable on those transactions which were treated by the applicant as 'sale of goods' (for which only VAT was paid). The applicant had undertaken the entire work including purchase of m....