Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Krrish Publicity Services Private ... vs Jaipur I.. on 27 April, 2026
1
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO. III
Service Tax Appeal No.51069 of 2019
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.46 (SM)ST/JPR/2018 dated
11/12.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise
and CGST, Jaipur]
M/s. Krrish Publicity Services Private Limited,
103, Radhey Villa Apartment,
Power House Road, ....APPELLANT
Banipark, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302 016.
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise &
Customs and CGST,
NCRB, Statue Circle, .....RESPONDENT
Jaipur-302 005. (Rajasthan) Appearance:
Present for the Appellant : Shri B.L. Narasimhan and Shri Shivam Bansal, Advocates Present for the Respondent: Shri Shashank Yadav, Authorised Representative. CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Final Order No. 50807/2026 Date of Hearing:07.04.2026 Date of Decision:27.04.2026 BINU TAMTA:
1. M/s. Krrish Publicity Services Pvt. Ltd. 1 assailed the impugned order confirming the demand of service tax liability on the activities of the appellant being composite work of „Sale of Space for Display of Advertisement‟ and „Erection, Installation and Maintenance‟ and, 1 The Appellant 2 therefore, the same is not covered in the Negative List under Section 66D(g) of the Finance Act, 19942.
2. We find that the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in Shah Publicity Vs. CCE & ST, Surat-I 3 has dealt with the same issue whether the services rendered by the appellant is included in the expression "Selling of Space of time slots for advertisement other than advertisements broadcast via radio or television" as provided in the Negative List of service under Section 66D(g) of the Act w.e.f. 01.7.2012. Considering the definition of „Advertising Agency‟ as defined under Section 65(3), it was noticed that as per the advertising service, display of advertising is one of the various advertising services but by virtue of Entry provided in the Negative List, „Selling of Space for Advertisement‟ is not taxable. The Bench had drawn a clear distinction between the service of advertising agency or service of sale of time or space for advertisement. In view thereof, it was observed as under:-
"6.8. Whereas, as per the facts available on record the concept of visualization, conceptualization, preparation of advertisement were done by some other persons and the appellant only provided the space for displaying such advertise therefore, the appellant's activity is clearly limited to "Selling of space or time slots for advertisements other than advertisements broadcast by radio or television". As per the facts, we find that in the present case Customers who intend to advertise their product/service do approach to the advertising agency to advertise their product by providing duration and the time during which their advertisement should be displayed. If the advertising agency designs, visualizes or conceptualizes advertisement to be displayed or exhibited then he will be covered under the scope of taxable service. If a person is provided printed materials for displaying it 2 Act, 1994 3 Final Order No.A/10243/2021 dated 29.01.2021 in S.T. Appeal No.10185/2019-CESTAT-Ahmedabad 3 at a particular location for particular time then such services would fall under negative list of service. In the present case the appellant's activity is after receipt of printed materials they displayed it at their hoardings which clearly fall under the negative list as described under section 66 D(g) of Finance Act. There is no evidence on record that the appellant is engaged in designing or conceptualizing the advertisement of their customers. The customers or advertising agency approach with their printed materials to the appellant, the appellant in turn mount the printed materials on the hoardings fixed at a particular place for a particular period as per the terms and conditions decided with the customers. Therefore, appellant's activity merely of mounting of printed materials provided by their client on the hoardings and charge is made on monthly basis or on periodical basis, hence clearly covered under negative list. There is a clear distinction between the service of advertising agency or service of sale of time or space for advertisement."
3. The distinguishing feature in holding an activity to be taxable under advertising agency, it was noted that only where the assessee themselves develop printed vinyl/flex and display the same on their hoardings, board, kiosk, etc. however, where the service is confined to display of an advertisement as per the space provided, the same falls under the Negative List under Section 66D(g) and cannot be taxed as such. The Bench relied on the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Team UPD Ltd. 4 which took a similar view merely allowing the space for displaying the advertisement of other parties cannot be taxed under the head of "Advertising Agency Service". Reliance was placed also on the decision in the case of Rex Advetisers Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax5 and Zodiac Advertisers Vs. CCE, Cochin6, where the Bench concluded that the appellant is not involved in conceptualization, 4 2006 (3) STR 427 (Tri.-Chennai) 5 2006(2) STR 330 (Tri.-Bangalore) 6 2006 (3) STR 538 (Tri.-Bang.) 4 visualization and designing of the advertisement, hence they do not fall under the category of "Advertisement Agency". Thus, the activity of selling space for advertisement carried out by the appellant cannot be held taxable.
4. The decision of the Ahmedabad Bench was challenged by the Department and the Apex Court did not find any infirmity in the Final Order of the Tribunal except for clarification in para 6.8, which has been noted to be on issue not disputed by the appellant. Thus the decision of the Tribunal that the service of „Sale of Space‟ for advertisement by the appellant on their hoardings/Bill Boards etc. stands covered under the Negative List during the period 01.07.2012 to 30.09.2014 and, therefore, the demand is unsustainable, stands affirmed by the Apex Court.
5. The Ahmedabad Bench then considered the issue of „bundled services‟ as the Department was of the view that the appellant‟s activity to be an activity of „Advertising Agency‟ by taking into account the activity of displaying the printed advertisement on the hoarding, electrification, repair and maintenance thereof. Referring to the provisions of Section 66F as considered by the Allahabad Bench in SJP Infracon Ltd. Vs. CC and Ex7, the Bench accepted the submissions of the appellant that the main activity is to display the readymade advertisements on the hoardings and being the owner of the hoarding, it was their obligation to provide the electrification and maintain the wear and tear of the advertisement, which are merely ancillary services necessary to provide the principal services of sale of space for advertisement. The relevant para in this regard reads as under:- 7
2018 (12)TMI 253 (T) 5 "9. Applying the above ratio in the facts of the present case the sale of space for advertisement is the service which gives essential character to the package of service therefore, the charges are essentially required to be bundled with the single service namely, sale of space for advertisement. As per this settled legal provision merely because the essential service is sale of space for advertisement provided along with other ancillary services such as electrification and repair & maintenance of advertisement/hoardings, the service of sale of space for advertisement will not go out of its purview."
6. Having examined the issue considered by the Ahmedabad Bench, we may now examine whether the present case falls under the same category. The appellant is engaged in providing space for display of advertisement. For this purpose, the appellant avails rights to public space/sites for display of advertisement from various parties such as Airport Authority of India, Northern Railway, Ambala by virtue of an agreement executed with the respective parties. The appellant then receives the work orders from several parties such as National Insurance Company Ltd., Life Insurance Corporation, Bank of Baroda, Syndicate Bank, etc. for providing space for advertisements. The appellant fabricates, installs and undertakes repair and maintenance of the advertisements displayed and charges monthly sums during the contractual period. Show cause notice dated April 10, 2017 was issued for the period July 2012 to September, 2014 alleging that the activities of the printing, fabrication and installation, etc. qualified as „Advertising Agency Service‟ by virtue of Section 66F of the Act. The impugned services were liable to be taxed under the said category. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand holding that the activities as composite work of "Sale of Space for Display of Advertisement" and "Erection, Installation and Maintenance" and, therefore, it was a case of 6 bundled services, the taxability of the same has to be decided in terms of Section 66F of the Act. Being aggrieved, the appellant had preferred an appeal, which has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Hence, the present appeal has been filed.
7. Having heard both the sides and perused the records of the case, we find that the present case is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Shah Publicity, both factually as well as the period involved being the same. The relevant legal provisions with reference to the present controversy are set out below:-
"Section 65: In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(3) "advertising agency" means any [person] engaged in providing any service connected with the making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement and includes an advertising consultant;
Negative List of Services 66D. The Negative List shall comprise of the following services, namely:-
(g) selling of space or time slots for advertisements other than advertisements broadcast by radio or television;
Principal of interpretation of specified descriptions of services or bundled services.
66F.(1) Unless otherwise specified, reference to a service (herein referred to as main service) shall not include reference to a service which is used for providing main service."
(2) Where a service is capable of differential treatment for any purpose based on its description, the most specific most specific description shall be preferred over a more general description.
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the taxability of a bundled service shall be determined in the following manner, namely:-
(a) if various elements of such service are naturally bundled in the ordinary course of 7 business, it shall be treated as provision of the single service which gives such bundle its essential character,
(b) if various elements of such service are not naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business, it shall be treated as provision of the single service which results in highest liability of service tax.
Explanation. For the purposes of sub-section (3), the expression "bundled service" means a bundle of provision of various services wherein un element of provision of one service is combined with an element or elements of provision of any other service or services."
8. On merits, Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the appellant has taken us through the sample purchase order issued to the appellant by Birla Corporation Ltd., whereby the scope of work has been specified as display of advertisement on hoardings with further specification that the design and colour scheme will be provided to them and they were required to prepare the design as per size to be sent for their approval. Copy of one such purchase order is reproduced as under:-
8
9. He has also taken us through the various invoices issued by the appellant revealing that the same are towards space for advertisement for the specified period mentioned therein. Copy of one of the invoices is set out below:-
9
Reverting back to the decision in Shah Publicity, where the Bench taking note of the invoices observed that the appellant is charging fixed amount on monthly basis towards display charges and the description provided in the invoices is media space. It was also noticed that in the invoices, there is no charges for the services such as making of advertisement or preparation of advertisement e.g. visualizing, conceptualizing, designing, etc. and in that view, it was concluded that the invoices raised by the appellant is not for making or preparation of advertisement but only for the display charges for space used for displaying of such advertisement. Following the observations, we find from the invoices annexed that the appellant has charged consolidated amount towards space for advertisement which is at fixed rate and fixed period. There are no separate charges towards different elements of the impugned services. Thus the services rendered are limited to display of advertisement, which squarely falls in the Negative List.
10. Coming to the issue of „bundled service‟, we find that the activities performed by the appellant includes sale of space, printing, fabrication, installation, and maintenance. From the contents of Section 66F(3)(a) as quoted above, services, which are „bundled service‟ has to be classified in accordance with the service which imparts the „essential character‟. From the contents of the agreement, the invoices and the purchase orders, it is evident that „Sale of Space‟ forms the most important element of the bundle of services. The mode of transaction is such that the appellant receives spaces/sites from licensors under the license agreement to display advertisements and thereafter provides these spaces to its customers for display of their advertisements. During 10 this process, the appellant provides certain "ancillary activities" such as installation, repair, and maintenance, etc. of hoardings. Applying the dominant test, the „Sale of Space‟ for advertisement would fall under the Negative List in terms of Section 66D(g) and hence is not exigible to service tax.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has also challenged the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation. He has taken us through the show cause notice, order-in-original and order-in-appeal that no allegation of fraud, misdeclaration or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty has been substantiated justifying the invocation of the extended period. The entire demand is time barred and in the absence of any of the elements couched in the Section, the extended period of limitation is not invocable and therefore, the demand cannot be sustained. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions:-
(1) Commissioner of Central Excise and
Customs Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.8
(2) Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner
of CGST and Central Excise9
(3) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs.
Union of India10
(4) G.D. Goenka Private Limited Vs.
Commissioner of Central Goods and Service
Tax, Delhi South11
(5) Religare Capital Markets Ltd. Vs. Pr.
Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi South12 8 2023 (385) ELT 481 (SC) 9 2023 (11 ) Centax 132 (Tri.-Del.) 10 2023 (73) GSTL 310(Del.) 11 Final Order No.51088/2023 in S.T. Appeal No.51787 of 2022 12 Final Order No.51654/2025 dated 30.10.2025 in S.T. Appeal No.51336 of 2017 11 (6) Rajasthan Housing Board, Rajasthan Vs. Commissioner, CGST, Jodhpur13
12. Following the aforementioned decisions, we agree with the submissions of Shri B.L. Narasimhan that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present case as the ingredients for invoking the same have not been substantiated by the Revenue. We also find that in the decision of Shah Publicity, the Bench held that the issue whether the service of appellant falls under the entry of „Sale of Space for advertisement‟ in the Negative List or otherwise, being one of interpretation, the extended period cannot be invoked. It was also rightly noted that the appellant were under the bona fide belief that the service of sale of space for advertisement covered under the negative list for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.09.2014 and for that reason, they were not discharging the service tax on the services. We, therefore hold that the demand is barred by limitation.
13. In view of our discussion above, we do not find any merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside. The appeal is, accordingly allowed.
th
[Order pronounced on 27 April, 2026 ]
( BINU TAMTA)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
(P.V. SUBBA RAO)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Ckp
13
Final Order Nos.51303-51304/2025 dated 17.09.2025 in S.T. Appeal No.50828 of 2020