2018 (6) TMI 1158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....: Mr. Rachit Jain, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Amresh Jain, D.R. ORDER PER: V. PADMANABHAN The present Appeal challenges the Order-in-Original No. 05/2015 dated 30.01.2005. The appellant is engaged in rendering advertising agency service. They also indulge in the activity of sale of advertisement space, which is booked with various broadcasters for telecast of advertisements. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the impugned order confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,38,24,069/- alongwith interest and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the above Order, the present Appeal stands filed. 2. In the above background, we heard Shri Rachit Jain, Ld. Advocate for the appellant as well as Mr. Amresh Jain, DR for Revenue. 3. The arguments advanced on beh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....India Pvt. Ltd., CST, New Delhi - 2011 (5) TMI 527 - CESTAT, New Delhi Mccan Erickson (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [2008 (1) TMI 137 - CESTAT, New Delhi] (d) He also submitted that the revenue has wrongly relied on the CBEC Circular dated 18.10.2001. 4. The Ld. DR justified the impugned order. 5. After hearing both sides and perusal of record, we ....