Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Neeru Enterprises

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Neeru Enterprises

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 28, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39499

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/39499
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Bajaj
Decided On: Jun 28, 2005
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Neeru Enterprises

Excerpt

1. in this appeal, the revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the commissioner (appeals) has dropped the service tax against the respondents. none has appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice issued to them. therefore, i proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned s.d.r.2. the respondents are an advertising agency. the service tax demand has been dropped against them by the commissioner (appeals) on the ground that they do not stand covered under the provisions of service tax. this view of the learned commissioner (appeals) cannot be accepted in view of the ratio of law laid down in the case of c.c.e., ludhiana v. gypsy advertising co. (t) wherein it has been observed that the advertising agency is liable to pay service tax as they stand covered under the provisions of the ser-vice tax. the impugned order is set aside and the order of the adjudicating au-thority is restored. the appeal of the revenue is allowed.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the Service Tax against the respondents. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice issued to them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned S.D.R.2. The respondents are an advertising agency. The Service Tax demand has been dropped against them by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that they do not stand covered under the provisions of Service Tax. This view of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be accepted in view of the ratio of law laid down in the case of C.C.E., Ludhiana v. Gypsy Advertising Co. (T) wherein it has been observed that the advertising agency is liable to pay Service Tax as they stand covered under the provisions of the Ser-vice Tax. The impugned order is set aside and the order of the adjudicating au-thority is restored. The appeal of the Revenue is allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Neeru Enterprises Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge P Bajaj