M/S. Aarti Advertising vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ...

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.AKP/149/NSK/2010 dated 24.05.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Nashik )

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

============================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

=============================================================

M/s. Aarti Advertising :

Appellant

VS

Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik :

Respondent

Appearance

Shri Nilesh Rathi, Advocate for Appellant

Shri A.B. Kulgod, Assistant Commissioner (A.R) for respondent

CORAM:

Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Date of hearing : 12/05/2015 Date of decision : 12/05/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : M.V. Ravindran

This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/149/NSK/2010 dated 24.05.2010.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding refund claim of Rs.80,123/- filed by the appellant. Appellant has sought refund of this amount on the ground that the service tax liability has been wrongly assessed on an amount which is received as a commission from print media. We find that the appellant had paid the service tax under the category of Advertising Services for the period July 2004 to March 2006 under protest. It is seen from the records that show cause notice which is issued to the appellant seeks to reclassify the services from advertising services to Business Auxiliary Services and confirmed the same. The adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority has held that the activity of the appellant in so far as receiving commission from the print media fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Services and amount paid by the appellant is considered as correct tax liability and appropriated against the service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. On a specific query from the Bench, as also seen from the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel was unable to point out to us whether they have contested the classification of the services before the Tribunal. Since the appellant has not contested the classification made by the lower authorities, we find that the appeal against the order is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal filed by the appellant.

(Pronounced in court)

(P.S.Pruthi) Member (Technical)

(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

Sm

??

??

??

??

3