Cce Ludhiana vs M/S Bir Advertising Agency

[Arising out of OIA No.92/CE/Ludhi/2009, dt.08.04.2009, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) Chandigarh]

CCE Ludhiana Appellant

Vs

M/s Bir Advertising Agency Respondent

Represented by:

For Assessee: Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate

For Revenue : Shri D.V. Nagvenkar, A.R.

For approval and signature:

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Honble Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No

Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT

(Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication

in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen

the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes

authorities?

CORAM:

MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

MR. P.S. PRUTHI, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:20.01.2015

Final Order No.50706/2015

Per: P.S. Pruthi

1. Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the duty demand of Rs.3,39,568.00 along with penalties.

2. The facts of the case are that the Respondent was doing the Painting of Advertisement material on walls for their client viz. M/s Hero Exports and M/s Hero Majestic Auto Industries. Revenue was of the view that the rent reimbursed by the client to the owner of the wall is required to be included for determining taxable value for the purposes of levy of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the activity of painting on the walls was not taxable under the category of advertisement agency service as held by CESTAT in the case of M/s Dhanshree Publicity Vs CCE Jaipur 2008 (10) STR 209 (Tri-Delhi) and the case of M/s Star Neon Singh Vs CCE Chandigarh  2002 (141) ELT 770 (Tri-Delhi). He also held that the expenses incurred for making space available are not includable in value of taxable service by relying on the CESTAT judgment in the case of M/s Prithvi Associates Vs CCE Mumbai  2006 (1) STR 32 (Tri-Mum.). The grounds of appeal of Revenue is very weak both in terms of legality as well as appreciation of findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. We find no reason to disagree with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) based on the orders of the Tribunal cited above.

4. We also note that the appeals where the revenue is less than Rs.5 lacs are not to be filed in terms of CBEC instruction F.No.390/Misc/163/2010-JC, dt.17.08.2011. This position has been reiterated by Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner Bangalore Vs Arvind Clothing  2012 (281) ELT 215 (Kar.) and by Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs Techno Economic Services Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (20) STR 707 (Bom.)

5. Revenues appeal is dismissed.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.K. Das) (P.S. Pruthi)

Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)

cbb

3