TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition of penalty against the appellant has been upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The facts in brief, relevant for the adjudication, are that M/s Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur [the appellant] is registered for rendering the taxable services under the category of 'Tour Operator Service', 'Business Auxiliary Service', 'Renting of Immovable Property Services', Sale of Space or time for advertisement services' and 'Business Support Services.' During the test check of the service record of the appellant for the period from April 2010 to March 2013 by the audit team, it was noticed that the appellant has received an amount of Rs. 10,48,78,000/- from the Government of Rajasthan on 12.06.2012 on account of display of adve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not an advertising agency but a State Government owned passenger transport organization providing bus services both within Rajasthan and the neighboring States. Final Order of this Tribunal Service Tax Appeal No. 55362 of 2024 dated 19.03.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 50688 of 2017 in appellant's own case has been relied upon. It is further submitted that the transaction/invoices on which service tax liability has been imposed are the documents for sale on which the appellant has already discharged its liability under Central Sales Tax @ 5%. The audit team was fully aware of nature of the transaction/invoices before the issuance of the show cause notice. Such show case notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terprises Pvt. Ltd. dated 01.02.2013 and based thereupon it has been held that the entire work undertaken by the appellant was of advertisement. Hence the same is rightly held to be covered under the definition of advertising agency as given in Section 65(3) of Finance Act. The said activity continues to be taxable even after the introduction of negative list with effect from 01.07.2012 in Section 66D of the Finance Act. Hence there is no infirmity in the order under challenge appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 7. Having heard both the parties and perusing the entire record, the issue involved in the present adjudication, is observed to be as follows: Whether the appellant a Government owned organization, while being engaged in p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the appellants herein have affixed advertisements on the buses hired by the appellant corporation. The issue about the act of displaying the advertisement on the public vehicle is no more rest integra. It has been held in decision of Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-V Vs. Incoda - 2014 (174) ELT 65". 9. Earlier also this Tribunal Kolkata Bench in the case of CCE Kolkata Vs. Incoda-2004 (174) ELT 65, it has been held that realization of rental charges by display of advertisement on the appellants property cannot be held as the sale of space or time for advertisement services, the assessee not being advertising agency. Similar other decision of this Tribunal in Delhi Bench in the case of CCE, Ludhiana Vs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of department is that alleged non-payment of service tax by appellant got revealed from the audit of its records. But this aspect is no more res integra, by virtue of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uniworth Textiles vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajpur reported as [2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC)]. The said decision has reportedly been followed by this Tribunal. 13. The said decision of the Tribunal has been confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported as [2015 (38) STR J429 (SC)]. On the same basis is a another decision of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ahmadabad [ 2020 (34) GSTL 526 (Tri-Ahmd)]. Same has also been upheld by Supreme Court in [2020....