Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Ajanta Fabrication vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 3 January, 2006
ORDER T.V. Sairam, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Ajanta Fabrication challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31-3-2005. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) had concluded that the appellants come under the purview of service tax as advertising agency. The appellants have contended in their appeal petition that they are a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sales of hoardings, sign boards and signages and that they were awarded a tender by Uttaranchal Tourism Department to manufacture and affix signages at specified places. The appellants were required to manufacture signages as below :
Board Painted with High Quality Stoving Enamel Paint by Spray Process, writing/drawing of the given matters by department as per colour choice, for prominent display, important information shall be laminated with engineers grade refractive sheets ... please collect the details of the materials to be written on signages, colour schemes to be used and list of places, where these signages are required to be fixed from this office on any working day at the earliest ... you are requested to prepare and fix these signages on top priority.
2. The learned Authorised Representative of the Department (ARD) contends that the activities of the appellants fall well within the ambit of 'Advertising Agency and Advertising Services' as the activities involved are (a) preparation of signages and (b) installation thereof. Further he points out that Section 65(90)(e) defines "advertising service" as a "taxable service to a client, by an advertising agency in relation to advertisement, in any manner."
3. None represents the appellants despite notice, nor was there any request from the appellants for adjournment.
4. We have heard the learned ADR and have perused the records. We find that the appellants are not just engaged in manufacture of signages and selling them. They have also rendered certain service by way of other activities, such as, for example installation and display of the advertisements, which are specifically brought under Section 65(90)(e). In the result, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities below which have correctly held that by making the sign board as well as in installing the same at specified places for display, the appellants have rendered nothing but a taxable service, squarely covered under the definition of "advertising agency".
5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open Court)