TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 674
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and registered under 'Advertising Agency's Service'. M/s Interface Communication Pvt. Ltd. (ICPL) is a subsidiary company of the appellant. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for providing certain services to their subsidiary company and receipts an amount equivalent to 75% of the total revenue received by their subsidiary company ICPL as a consideration. The demand was raised under '"Business Auxiliary Services". The show-cause notice was issued for invoking extended period of limitation on 12.10.2010 for the period 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. Learned Counsel pointed out that this subsidiary was created as a business necessity as a separate legal entity for different clients. The subsidiary was using appellant's resources and as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Service Tax on services rendered by it to an advertising agency, even if the advertising agency is also liable to pay Service Tax on the amount billed to its client for advertising services (which, inter alia, includes the amount paid by the advertising agency for such market research services to the market research agency)." 2.1 He argued that since the entire revenue received by them from their subsidiary has already suffered tax and their subsidiary was under bonafide believes that being sub-contractor are not liable to pay Service Tax. Learned Counsel further relied upon the Circular F. No. V/DGST/Misc-7/98 dated 11.02.1999, wherein the following description as under:- "The filed formations are allowing the benefit of subcontracting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove clarification in para 7.2 of the Ministry's instruction would be applicable of all service category." He argued that in light of aforesaid Circular also they were not liable to pay Service Tax. 2.2 He further pointed out that a show-cause notice does not specify the precise sub-clause of the definition of "Business Auxiliary Services" under which liability arises. He argued that in absence of such precise charge no demand can be made. He relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of United Telecom Ltd. Vs. CCE (2011) 21 STR 234 (Tri.-Bang.), United Telecom Ltd. Vs. CST, Hyderabad - 2011 (22) STR 571 (Tri-Bang). Learned Counsel argued that they did not fall under any clause of the definition of "Business Auxiliary Services" and t....