RUBITA GIDWANI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE Appellant filed this appeal against the Order -in -Appeal No. SB(63)63/STC/2009, dated 8 -10 -2009 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the lower adjudicating authority's order dated 20 -6 -2006 confirming the demand of service tax of Rs. 1,70,607/ - and imposition of various penalties.

(3.) THE contention of the Appellant is that as per para 2(v) of the show -cause notice, the Appellant was neither an employee of the company and she was independently providing the work of conceptualization and writing contents of the advertising material. The learned Counsel submits that the Board, vide Master Circular dated 23 -8 -2007 clarified that, the fact that a given taxable service is intended for use as an input service by another service provider does not alter the taxability of the service provided. The learned Counsel submitted that even if the Appellant is held to be a sub -contractor the Appellant will be liable to pay duty only from 23 -8 -2007, the date on which the circular was issued. The learned Counsel also pointed out to para 3 of Ministry of Finance (D.R.) letter No. 11/3/98 -TRU dated 7 -10 -1998 which clarified that service tax would be required to be paid in a case where sub -contracting is to a different service category and the Appellant was not providing any service of this kind. In support of their contention the Appellant have also cited the Tribunal decision in the case of Urvi Construction v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad : 2010 (17) S.T.R. 302. The Appellant contended that service tax in this case has been paid by Ambience. They have also produced a certificate dated 15 -11 -2007 to this effect before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellant have also cited the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of BBR (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore -III, 2006 (4) S.T.R. 269 and Oikos v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore -III : 2007 (5) S.T.R. 229.