HITECH PUBLICITIES Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the lower authorities have demanded service tax of over Rs. 8.9 lakhs from the assessee by treating them as "advertising agency" under Section 65(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period October 1999 to September 2004. They have also imposed penalties on the party. The appellants, during the said period, had put -up hoardings and sign boards on which advertisement matters of M/s. Pepsico India Holdings and M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. were displayed. It is the case of the appellants that these advertisement matters were not conceptualized or designed by them. The same are said to have been designed by their clients viz. the aforesaid companies. It is submitted by ld.counsel that, on these facts, the appellants have a prima facie case against the above demand of service tax. In this connection, he has relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal:

(2.) AFTER considering the submissions, we have found prima facie case for the appellants in view of the case law cited by ld. counsel, which is to the effect that there can be no demand of service tax on a person in the category of "advertising agency" unless it is established that such person conceptualized and designed the advertisement matter displayed on hoardings etc. Therefore, there will be waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of the service tax and penalty amounts. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)