TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Advocate submits that the show cause notice is vague and unspecific and does not allege as to how the appellant has rendered 'Advertising Agency Services'. The activity amounts to "Sale of Advertising Space" during the exhibition of movies, which was not taxable during the relevant period. The Tribunal in the case of Needwise Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax 2011 (11) STR 229 (Tri.) has clearly held that the sale of time through electronic media for display of advertisement cannot be confirmed as "Advertising Services" and the same would fall under the category of "Sale of Space, Time for Advertisements" which become taxable w.e.f. 01.05.2006. Though the learned Advocate fully agrees that the period involve is subsequent to 01.05.2006 but submits that demand having been confirmed under the category of "Advertising Agency Services", is incorrect, inasmuch as no services were rendered by them falling under the said category. However, learned Advocate further submits that they have deposited the entire service tax on 21.02.2014 itself along with payment of interest of Rs. 6,76,621/- and are not challenging the confirmation of the same and the challenge in the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant, the show cause notice originally raised the demand of Rs. 43,67,983/- towards rental income for two years i.e. 2009-10 and 2010-11. There was no proposal to confirmation of tax for the period 2007-08 & 2008-09. It was further alleged that the appellant has raised bill for rental income in the form of "commission" for the period 2008-09 to 2010-11 for which service tax is required to be paid. The learned Advocate submits that during the relevant period there was lot of confusion about the taxability of rental income and Tribunal in the case of M/s La Freightlift Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE has held that tax can be levied only on the amount actually realized till 01.04.2011 when the provisions were changed. As such during the relevant time, the service tax was payable only on actual receipt and not on the gross amount of rent booked in the books of accounts of the landlord. However, the appellant has paid the entire service tax on the said account along with interest and is only challenging the imposition of penalty. Admittedly, during the relevant period there was lot of confusion in the field, as regards the taxability of the rental income and renting of immovable property and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld that "till fiction was introduced that trading in an exempt service, by explanation introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2011 (beyond the period of this case) in Cenvat Rule, trading which is a sale of goods could not have been considered as a service, taxable or exempt. Further, parking charges is again not a "service" as does not fall in Section 65(105) Finance Act. Hence, all the above three activities do not fall within realm of service and, therefore, to allege that they are exempt service is totally unsustainable. Hence, Rule 6(1) to (3) are not applicable. They have taken Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on (i) management, maintenance or repair service (ii) security agency services (iii) commercial, industrial and construction service (iv) Interior Decorator Service and (v) Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service. The services which are covered within the scope of Rule 6(5) of the Credit Rules are (a) Consultancy engineer services (b) Architect services (c) Interior Decorator services (d) Management consultant services (e) Real Estate agent services (f) Security agency services (g) Scientific or technical cconsultancy services (h) Banking and Financial services (i) Insurance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of Orion Appliances Ltd. (supra) and the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s HCL Infosystem Ltd. Vs CC & CE (supra) that mere non-description or nonpayment of duty is not sufficient to invoke longer period unless there is positive act of concealment. Noncompliance of forums and procedures is not applicable for invoking the longer period. The appellant has disclosed the entire information in their Annual Accounts and at the time of filing of ST-3 returns. The Commissioner reasoning that as the appellant have not sought classification from the department, extended period would be invokable, cannot be appreciated in view of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. Vs CCE reported at 2011 (22) STR 41, laying down that extended period is not invokable merely because party did not approach the Revenue for clarification and did not disclose the activity undertaken by them. The Board Circular No.113/7/2009-ST dated 23.04.2009-ST clarifies that the officers are supposed to scrutinize the return and once the assessee has been regularly filing the ST-3 return, the allegation of suppression or misstatement cannot be upheld against them, as held by the Tribuna....