2025-VIL-1721-CESTAT-HYD-ST
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-1721-CESTAT-HYD-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Advertisement in Magazine, Exemption for Print Media - Appellant was getting certain advertisements published in foreign magazine to promote the export of their product 'polished granite slab' - Department considered this service as falling under the category of advertisement in magazine under section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Finance Act and demanded service tax for the period 2008-09 to 2010-11 - Whether the advertisement published by the appellant in the foreign magazine is exempt from service tax as it falls under the category of 'print media' under section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Finance Act - HELD - The letter issued in the course of adjudication would be in the nature of corrigendum to the SCN and such infirmity in the SCN itself and then confirmation of demand under a different heading, which was not even disclosed at the time of issuing SCN itself cannot become basis for confirmation of demand. Therefore, on this ground itself, the demand would not be sustainable – Further, the Tribunal in Fertiplant Engg. Co Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Raigad held that advertisement in a foreign magazine would be covered within the definition of 'book' and excluded from service tax liability – In the instant case, the magazine 'Stone World' also contained various articles on technology relating to the stone industry, news on stone technology for the benefit of the stone industry, and therefore, it does not get excluded from the definition of 'books'. Accordingly, the advertisement published by the appellant in the magazine 'Stone World' is exempt from service tax – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - Whether the extended period of limitation under proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act is invokable in the present case - HELD - The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the penalty under section 78 on the ground that the appellant had not paid the service tax due to a bona fide belief that the service received by them was not taxable. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the invocation of the extended period of limitation under proviso to section 73(1). The stand is contradictory, as when there was no intention to evade payment of tax, the extended period of limitation should also not be invokable. Therefore, the demand would not sustain on the ground of limitation as well.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C of FY24-25
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?