FINESSE ADVERTISING Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Subash Vashisht, representative of the appellants pleaded that in their Return, they have by mistake shown the gross amount of the bills as the amount liable for service tax. However, the service tax paid by them was only on the actual amount on which service tax was leviable. Due to their mistake in showing the gross amount in their service tax return, the department demanded Rs. 11,781/ - as service tax short -paid. Subsequently, they realized their mistake of showing the wrong amount in the Service Tax Return and produced the bills before the lower authorities explaining that they had paid the tax correctly. However, lower authorities have not accepted their plea and confirmed the demand on the ground that the invoice does not lead to differentiating between the amount chargeable to service tax and the amount collected from the customers for total advertisements given to the Press. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also given a finding in Para -5 of the order on this aspect. He however pleaded that they produced accounts books but the Commissioner (Appeals) has not looked into those accounts books and passed the order.

(2.) Shri V. Valte, SDR appearing for the Revenue pleaded that the bills produced by the appellants which are part of the appeal do not show the taxable service charges separately which has been now added in the invoices submitted with the appeal. He, therefore, pleaded in the circumstances, it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion whether the amount chargeable to service tax as now claimed by the appellants and shown by writing in ink on the computerized invoices is the actual account on which the service tax is chargeable. He, therefore, agrees that the case may be remanded back to the original authority to check with the books of accounts and then come to a correct conclusion regarding the service tax liability of the appellants.

(3.) On considering the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the appellants have pleaded that they have produced the accounts books but nobody has seen those in detail. Since he is running the advertising agency himself and he is not a man of accounts, therefore, he may be given an opportunity to produce those accounts again before the original authority and examine his claim. I find that the appellants have given the details of the invoices and in those invoices he has shown that out of this gross amount charged from the customers, he gets only 15% of that amount as the charges on which service tax leviable is clearly mentioned in his accounts books. In view of this, I set aside the order of the lower authority and remand the matter to the original authority to re -adjudicate the case after examining the accounts books of the appellants with reference to his claim that there was a mistake in showing the gross amount in the Service Tax Return filed by them, and he has paid service tax on the correct amount on which service tax was chargeable. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. Ordered accordingly.