Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Spring Advertising Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 26 June, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Appeal Nos. ST/129/12, ST/86883 & 85281/13 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AGS (192-193)141, 43/2011 dated 08.12.2011 & No. AV (188-189)200, 14/2012 dated 17.10.2012 both passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad.) For approval and signature: Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, 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 :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
========================================================== Spring Advertising Pvt Ltd Appellant (Represented by: Mr. Sushant Murthy, Advocate) Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Aurangabad Respondent (Represented by: Mr. B.K. Iyer, Superintendent (AR)) CORAM:
Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 26.06.2014 Date of Decision: 26.06.2014 ORDER NO..
Per: S.S. Kang
1. Heard both sides.
2. Common issue is involved. Therefore the appeals are being taken up together for disposal.
3. M/s Spring Advertising Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to as appellant) filed three appeals against the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The demands were confirmed on the ground that the appellants are undertaking the activities which falls under the category of Advertisement Agency as defined under Section 65 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994.
4. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant company is of Mulay Group Companies, Aurangabad and an associated company of M/s Ajeet Seeds Ltd of Aurangabad. The main activity of the appellant is to serve Mulay Group of Companies as agent for adversing in newspapers etc by collecting the proforma of the advertisements through Mulay Group of Companies and forwarding the same to the desired newspaper for advertisement. If any person who wants to publish any advertisement in any of the newspaper directly goes to the newspaper, company does not give any discount. However, if the advertisement has been sent to the desired newspaper through commission agent the publishing newspaper company will give 10 to 15% discount in the form of commission. The appellants are only collecting and forwarding the advertisement to the desired newspaper and not performing anything concerning making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement. Hence the appellants are not providing any service which comes under the scope of advertising agency service.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the adjudication order as well as the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) there is no finding that the appellants are undertaking the activity in respect of making, preparation, display or exhibition etc of advertisement. Hence the demand is not sustainable.
6. Revenue relies upon the statement of Mr. Manohar Pathrekar where he explained the activity undertaken by the appellant. The contention of Revenue is that in his statement Mr. Pathrekar agreed with the wordings which is on the website that the company is having independent creative and advertising wing under the name of Spring Advertising Pvt Ltd. It has speciality in high quality of art work, print and audio visual media. The contention is that in view of this the impugned order is rightly passed.
7. We have gone through the adjudication order and the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the adjudication order dated 15.6.2011 there is a specific finding that the appellant was not engaged in making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order also held that the appellants are engaged in collecting advertisement from Mulay Group of Companies and forwarding the same to the desired newspaper. Hence this activity shows that the appellants are engaged in the activity which is connected with the activity of advertisement published. As per Section 65 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994 advertisement agency means any person engaged in providing any service connected with the making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement and includes an advertising consultant. A reading of the definition of advertising agency shows that a person should be engaged in providing any service connected with the making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement. The admitted fact is that the appellants are not undertaking any activity connected with the making, preparation, display etc and the appellants are only collecting the advertising and the same is forwarded to various newspapers for publication. In these circumstances, we find merit in the contention of the appellant that the appellants are not providing any activity which covers under the category of advertising agency. The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
8. The appellants are entitled for consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.
(Dictated in Court.) (P.S. Pruthi) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President rk 4