BINU TAMTA:

1. M/s. Krrish Publicity Services Pvt. Ltd.¹The Appellant assailed the impugned order confirming the demand of service tax liability on the activities of the appellant being composite work of „Sale of Space for Display of Advertisement‟ and „Erection, Installation and Maintenance‟ and, therefore, the same is not covered in the Negative List under Section 66D(g) of the Finance Act, 1994²Act, 1994.

2. We find that the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in Shah Publicity Vs. CCE & ST, Surat-I³Final Order No.A/10243/2021 dated 29.01.2021 in S.T. Appeal No.10185/2019-CESTAT-Ahmedabad has dealt with the same issue whether the services rendered by the appellant is included in the expression “Selling of Space of time slots for advertisement other than advertisements broadcast via radio or television” as provided in the Negative List of service under Section 66D(g) of the Act w.e.f. 01.7.2012. Considering the definition of „Advertising Agency‟ as defined under Section 65(3), it was noticed that as per the advertising service, display of advertising is one of the various advertising services but by virtue of Entry provided in the Negative List, „Selling of Space for Advertisement‟ is not taxable. The Bench had drawn a clear distinction between the service of advertising agency or service of sale of time or space for advertisement. In view thereof, it was observed as under:-

“6.8. Whereas, as per the facts available on record the concept of visualization, conceptualization, preparation of advertisement were done by some other persons and the appellant only provided the space for displaying such advertise therefore, the appellant's activity is clearly limited to "Selling of space or time slots for advertisements other than advertisements broadcast by radio or television". As per the facts, we find that in the present case Customers who intend to advertise their product/service do approach to the advertising agency to advertise their product by providing duration and the time during which their advertisement should be displayed. If the advertising agency designs, visualizes or conceptualizes advertisement to be displayed or exhibited then he will be covered under the scope of taxable service. If a person is provided printed materials for displaying it at a particular location for particular time then such services would fall under negative list of service. In the present case the appellant's activity is after receipt of printed materials they displayed it at their hoardings which clearly fall under the negative list as described under section 66 D(g) of Finance Act. There is no evidence on record that the appellant is engaged in designing or conceptualizing the advertisement of their customers. The customers or advertising agency approach with their printed materials to the appellant, the appellant in turn mount the printed materials on the hoardings fixed at a particular place for a particular period as per the terms and conditions decided with the customers. Therefore, appellant's activity merely of mounting of printed materials provided by their client on the hoardings and charge is made on monthly basis or on periodical basis, hence clearly covered under negative list. There is a clear distinction between the service of advertising agency or service of sale of time or space for advertisement.”

3. The distinguishing feature in holding an activity to be taxable under advertising agency, it was noted that only where the assessee themselves develop printed vinyl/flex and display the same on their hoardings, board, kiosk, etc. however, where the service is confined to display of an advertisement as per the space provided, the same falls under the Negative List under Section 66D(g) and cannot be taxed as such. The Bench relied on the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Team UPD Ltd.⁴2006 (3) STR 427 (Tri.-Chennai) which took a similar view merely allowing the space for displaying the advertisement of oth