Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce vs Azad Publications on 3 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(167)ELT59(TRI-DEL), 2006[3]S.T.R.249
ORDER
K.K. Usha, J. (President)
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Ludhiana Dated. 30.05.03 holding that the respondent would not come within the definition of advertising agency for the purpose of liability to pay service tax. The respondent is permitting display of advertisement on its site and raising bills for realizing rental charges. SCN was issued alleging that in case they are providing advertising service to their clients, therefore, they are liable to pay service tax in respect of rental charges.
2. Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that mere sub-letting site to an advertising agency without providing services of the nature defined under the Finance Act would not make the respondent liable to pay service tax.
3. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the correct view. The activity of the respondent will not bring it under the definition of 'advertising agency'. Under these circumstances, the contentions raised by the appellants are devoid of merit. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.