TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (9) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on that there is prima facie factual error that has been considered for pronouncing of advance ruling inasmuch the Authority relied on the contention of the Commissioner that the applicant is providing various value added services, which tantamount to taxable services under the advertisement service category. This plea of the Commissioner was vehemently opposed by the applicant. The submission of the applicant was that it did not intend to provide the service of jumpstart etc. which ate mentioned on the website of Google Inc. USA and which are not intended to be provided by the applicant. it is further stated at CBEC has taken an entirely different viewpoint regarding the element of advertising services liable to service tax and the change ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quent developments, applicant is liable to pay service tax on the charges providing/selling space to a customer for mere exhibiting/displaying an advertisement in a case where no other value added services are provided to such a customer. 2. In his comments the Commissioner has submitted that as per regulation 18 of the Regulations there should be a mistake of law or facts on which the ruling is based and that in the present case there has been no mistake of law or facts in gibing the ruling, therefore, the application is not admissible. Adverting to para 11 of the ruling, the Commissioner states that the Authority considered the requirements of the terms of the advertisement agency and noted the applicant's submission that it would n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned counsel appearing for the applicant, fairly submits that the applicant has no grievances with regard to the ruling pronounced by the Authority; what he prays is clarification of the ruling as is liable to be misinterpreted by the authorities. Mr. Roy appearing for the Commissioner has argued that to invoke the jurisdiction of the Authority under Regulation 18, the ruling must have been passed on a mistake of law or facts. Indeed, ruling is not based on any mistake of law or facts. The applicant in effect is seeking review of the ruling by praying the Authority to interpret the ruling in a given situation and that is not within the scope of the said regulation. 4. On the above contentions, the short question that arises for consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Authority that an order/advance ruling has been pronounced under mistake of law or fact. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Central Excise Officer who passed the order has an analogous power under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 (Service Tax Law) though the pre-requisite of that power is a little different, namely, mistake apparent from the record. Another analogous provision is Section 154 of the income-tax Act, 1961 where under the pre-requisite for rectification of mistake is "a mistake apparent from the record". It may be useful to bear in mind the distinction between the appellate power and the revisionary power on the one hand and the power of review and the power of rectification of mistakes on the other h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d under Section 65 (105) (zh) of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994). * Business Auxiliary Service (as defined under Section 65 (105) (zzb) of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994). * Any other taxable service (as enumerated in Section 65 (105) of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994)." It is thus obvious that the question set forth for ruling from the Authority relates to classification of services provided by the applicant. The relief sought in this application relates to quantum of amount chargeable to Service Tax. The petitioner's submission in the application is: "the correct approach according to us in the case of advertising services in the instant case is to exclude the value of the sale of space if that is separately identified and only ....