2018 (7) TMI 431

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cted by the department, it appeared that the appellants though required to discharge service tax liability on the following activities, however, had failed to do so. i) Service provided to other advertisement agencies. ii) Door to door sales for the period 2002-2007 in respect of selling of the goods provided by the clients. iii) Printing of leaflets/Flex materials for the period 2002-2003 to 2006-07. It appeared that the appellants were advertising the products of other clients in vans by painting or fixing vinyl posters. iv) Reimbursement of materials for the period 2002-03 to 2006 -07. 1.2 It further appeared to the department that the appellants were liable to discharge service tax liability on amo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... b) With regard to the door to door sales, the Ld. Counsel the appellant was only sending people by various modes of transport to go from door to door to sell the products of the clients. They were only supplying the man power as per the directions to the distributor of the manufacturer as per the advice of the latter. For this activity they are being paid an amount based on Rs. 2.50 paise per call ie., per door to door visit. Ld. Counsel took us to paragraph-21 of the original order to point out that they have brought this aspect to the notice of the original authority, however, the same was not considered. For these reasons, this activity of the appellants cannot be brought under the fold of BAS. c) With regard to print....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o apply here and they cannot be made liable to service tax. 3. On the other hand, on behalf of Revenue, Ld. AR Shri. K.P. Muralidharan, AC, reiterated the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5.1 In respect of the first issue, namely, the services provided to other advertising agencies, we find that the matter is well settled in favour of the appellants not only by the decision of Zee Telefilms Ltd. (supra) but also in a number of other decisions by the very Bench. Hence the tax liability of Rs. 2,99,09,380/- proposed in the work sheet to the SCN on this count, will therefore not sustain and is therefore set aside. 5.2 In respect of door to door sales, from the facts on record we are not convinced....