Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. the Incoda - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this appeal has been filed by the commissioner of central excise, kolkata-v, against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeal-i) of central excise, kolkata on 31st july, 2003, by which he set aside the impugned order of the superintendent of central excise, service tax cell, kolkata-i.2. brief facts of the case are that m/s. the incoda, 1/a jatin bagchi road, kolkata 700029, is authorized by the metro railway to install, maintenance and display of advertisements inside the coaches on rental basis. they in turn display the advertisement supplied to them by their clients. the assessee applied for service tax registration as "advertiser" which was granted by the department on 6th january, 1999.thereafter, the assessee on 9th february, 1999, requested for cancellation of the.....

Judgment:
1. This appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-V, against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeal-I) of Central Excise, Kolkata on 31st July, 2003, by which he set aside the impugned order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Service Tax Cell, Kolkata-I.2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. The Incoda, 1/A Jatin Bagchi Road, Kolkata 700029, is authorized by the Metro Railway to install, maintenance and display of advertisements inside the coaches on rental basis. They in turn display the advertisement supplied to them by their Clients. The assessee applied for Service Tax Registration as "Advertiser" which was granted by the Department on 6th January, 1999.

Thereafter, the assessee on 9th February, 1999, requested for cancellation of the Registration. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Service Tax Cell, vide his letter dated 15th October, 2001, rejected his request. M/s. The Incoda, preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Superintendent which was allowed by the Commissioner.

(Appeals) of Central Excise, Kolkata.

3. I have heard Shri N.K. Mishra, ld. JDR for the Appellant-Revenue and S/Shri J.P. Khaitan, P. Banerjee & A. Roy, all ld. Advocates, for the Respondents.

4. The question before us is as to whether the act of displaying the advertisement in the Metro Railway Coaches is tantamount an act of Advertising Agency and is liable to pay Service Tax.

5. The similar matter came up for consideration before Delhi Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Azad Publications reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 59 (Tri. - Del.) wherein Hon'ble Justice K.K. Usha, President, CESTAT, held as under : "Service Tax - Advertising Agency - Respondents permitting display of advertisement on its site and raising bills for realizing rental charges -Such activity not bring the respondents under the definition of advertising agency - Section 65(2) of Finance Act, 1994." In the present case also, the respondent has hired space in Metro Railway Coaches and in turn provides space to its client for advertisement. The facts of the present case are similar to that of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Azad Publications (supra).

In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the present appeal and appeal deserves to be dismissed.