2004 (10) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 11,47,500/- towards rental from PEPSICO and LAQSHYA respectively. The department demanded service tax on these amounts from the respondents by treating them as Advertising Agency. These demands were contested. The original authority confirmed these demands against the assessee. An appeal was preferred to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was allowed. Hence the present appeal of the Revenue. 2. Ld. SDR. reiterates the grounds of this appeal and submits that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the Board's Circular No. 341/43/96-TRU, dated 31-10-96 is not correct in view of the Tribunal's decision in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai [2004 (166) E.L.T. 34 (Tri. - Del.)]. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the respon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ements to be displayed on the billboard installed and maintained by the respondents were designed by PESICO. In this connection, I must read the Trade Notice relied on by the Counsel. This Trade Notice reads as under :- Trade Notice No. 99/GL-9Q/CE/PRO/CAL-II/99, dated 16-9-1999 of the Calcutta Commissionerate - "Attention of the Trade and Field Formations are invited to the fact that, doubts have been raised as to whether persons engaged in the activity of compilation, printing and publishing of telephone directories. Yellow pages and business directories are covered under the definition of 'advertising agency' and accordingly liable to pay service tax. The matter has been examined by the2. Ministry of Finance, Department of Reven....