Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur vs Media World Enterprises on 27 January, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No.
ST/220/09
- Mum
(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. SR/149/NGP/2009 dated 07.07.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Appellant
Vs.
Media World Enterprises
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R.K. Das, AC(AR) for the appellant Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 27/01/2015 Date of decision : 27/01/2015 O R D E R No:..
Per: M.V. Ravindran:
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. SR/149/NGP/2009 dated 07.07.2009.
2. The facts that arise for consideration are whether the appellant are to be fastened with the service tax liability for the period 21.11.2006 to 02.11.2007 for discharging of service tax liability under the category of sale of space of advertisement services. The Adjudicating Authority has observed the appellant is printing and publishing calendar KALDARSHIKA on which there are advertisement; therefore services are provided which fall under category of sale of space for advertisement. On appeal, the first appellate authority has set aside the Order in Original and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. The revenue has appealed before the Tribunal.
3. Ld. Departmental Representative would take up through definition as per Section 65 (105) (zzzm) and submit that the explanation (ii) is relied upon by the Revenue that Book as defined in sub-section (1) of section 1 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, will not apply in this case as the publication undertaken by the appellant is a calendar; it is his submission that as per explanation (2) to the definition, excludes the business directory, yellow pages and trade catalogues which are primarily meant for commercial purposes, and the calendar which are published by the appellant would fall under this category. He would also submit with regard to fact that the appellant has indicated that they have got income by sale of books as also publishing books.
4. Ld. Counsel would support the order. He submits that they fall under the category of books by the first appellate authority; who has held so after perusal of the KALDARSHIKA which is nothing but Almanac.
5. We have considered the submission at length by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the first appellate authority has called for specimen copy of KALDARSHIKA and considered the articles printed on the same and came to the conclusion that it is a ready reckoner of all sorts of religious, cultural and historical events of the year; the tables and charts give ample information about the auspicious dates/times, details of solar/lunar eclipses etc., though it contained many advertisements printed on each and every page. The first appellate authority has held that KALDARSHIKA is covered by the definition of Book by recording the following findings:
9.7 The above said definition of the word 'book' as given in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867) is an "inclusive definition". The appellants have cited the following case laws to drive home their point that the above definition being an "inclusive" definition, it only seeks to widen its meaning and not limit it.
(a) The State of Maharashtra Vs Labour Law Practitioner' Association & ors.-AIR 1998 SC 1233
(b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs G.R.Karthikeyan AIR 1993 SC 1671
(c) Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd Vs CIT - AIR 1986 SC 338 I endorse this contention of the appellants. It is well settled law that when the legislature uses the word "includes", it enlarges the meaning of the words occurring in the body of the. statute.
"The word 'include' is generally used In interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute,' and when it is so used, these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending not only such thlngs as they signify according to their natural import but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include" (Regl. Dlr. ESIC Vs High Land Coffee Works. AIR 1992 SC 129, 131) 9.8 There is thus no doubt that the word "book", occurring in clause 105 (zzzm) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, has to be understood in the context of the extended definition given in sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867) and not in terms of any other definition in a dictionary or as understood in common parlance. Further, other provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867) need not be gone into for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion as to whether or not a particular item can be considered as "book" for the limited purpose of Explanation 2 ibid. By virtue of the said definition, 'every sheet of music, map, chart or plan separately printed' should also be considered as "book". In the instant case, I find that "Kaldarshika" consists of sheets of printed material, with tables/charts therein. On detailed examination of the facts of the case, it is my considered view that the appellant's publication "Kaldarshika", which consists of printed tables, charts etc can be brought within the mischief of the term "book" under the aforesaid inclusive definition in sub-section (1) of section 1 ibid. 9.7 With effect from 01-06-2007, by virtue of an amendment to Explanation 2 ibid, the definition of 'book' excludes business directories, yellow pages and trade catalogues which are primarily meant for commercial purposes. "Kaldarshika" published by the appellant certainly cannot be termed as a business directory, yellow pages or trade catalogue" Thus this exclusion clause also does not render the publication "Kaldarshika" ineligible to be considered as a book.
9.8 In view of the above, it is apparent that "Kaldarshika" published by the appellants is covered by the definition of the word "book" given in sub-section (1) of section 1 ibid and hence gets covered by the scope of the term "print media". In as much as the sale of space to print media stands excluded from the purview of this taxable service in question, the entire demand raised by the department has no legs to stand. The demand is thus unsustainable and is liable to be set aside In toto. The question of levy of interest as well as penalty also does not arise as the demand itself does not survive.
6. As against the factual finding as recorded by the first appellate authority, we find that the revenue has not brought any material which is contrary to the facts as recorded by the first appellate authority. Be that as it may, we find that definition of Sale of space for advertisement as relied by the Departmental Representative falling under Section 65 (105) (zzzm), would not cover the product published by the appellant, as the said publication cannot be considered a calendar but an Almanac, which gives reader a host of information I respect of religions, cultural and historical events, as also the panchang. We agree with the first appellate authority that the appellants product KALDARSHIKA cannot be termed as a business directory, yellow pages or trade catalogue; hence it is to be held as book to be covered under the explanation (2) to the definition of the Sale of Space for advertisement.
7. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the impugned order is correct, legal and does not suffer from any infirmity.
8. The appeal is rejected.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) //SR 6