2017 (9) TMI 262

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ugned order. The Revenue is contesting the non-imposition of penalty on the assessee/appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee appellant is a society created by Government of Chhattisgarh for the purpose of activities of advertisement. The scope of function of the assessee/appellant is that all the Department Undertakings, Government Bodies of Chhattisgarh Government would make advertisement only through them. They will design and make arrangements for publishing the advertisement through print media and electronic media. The assessee/appellant would also produce films, documentaries, websites for publication of programmes, achievements, etc. Further, they would also prepare advertising materials for Ministries, Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d along with service tax were shown in their bill to the Govt. Department with a markup of 10% as 'other charges'. They have discharged service tax on the value of services received from the Govt. departments but not on the 10% charges collected. The demand presently has been confirmed under BAS for the 10% charges collected by them from Govt. Departments. The ld. Counsel submitted that the consideration received cannot be put to tax under two categories - one part under 'advertising agency' and the other part under 'BAS'. They have carried out only a single service to the Govt. departments, and as such, there is no activity covered under BAS to be taxed. 4. Ld. AR for Revenue apart from reiterating the grounds of appeal by Revenue,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Govt. Department. We find that the appellant assessee has been entrusted with the work of advertisement published by the Govt. Departments and they did discharge the work by engaging another agency. They have collected an extra 10% for their services over and above the actual amount paid to the advertisement agency. We find in such situation, the activities of the appellant assessee should have been covered under one single category for tax purpose. Admittedly, their payment of service tax under advertisement agency service has been accepted by the Revenue, on part of the bill. The service tax being demanded now under BAS, is not legally tenable. The demand has been confirmed on the ground that the appellant assessee is not an advertising ....