Case Law Details
Vasantham Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
It is evident that the appellant was only renting out the hoardings which were either owned by them or leased to them, to various advertising agencies. There is no allegation that appellant had themselves made prepared displayed or exhibited any advertising on their own. There is no dispute that the advisement which may have appeared on the hoardings are those that were prepared by the concerned advertising agencies and certainly not by the appellants. The appellants have only rented out these hoardings to the concerned advertising agency. The definition of “Advertising Agencies” in Section 65 (3) ibid does include the phrase “any service connected with”. Discernably, this phrase has to be read in keeping with the principle of ejusdem generis. Where a law lists specific class of persons or things and then refers to that in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed out.
If we apply the takeaways from the above judgements, it is evident that “any service connected with”the making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement must obviously be a service of the same nature or generis. When the category of service concerns and involves creativity and even specifically seeks to include “advertising consultant”, it would be too farfetched to bring in renting of hoardings within the scope of such service.
Even in a recent Tribunal decision of CESTAT Chennai Chaya Lakshmi Creations Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST Chennai – 2017 (8) TMI 1117 – CESTAT Chennai where also the issue of renting of space for display of advertisements at various places of theatre complex in the form of hoardings etc. was addressed, it was held that the said activities cannot be regarded as “Advertising Agency Service”.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGMENT
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
