IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. S.T.A. No.20 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.8.2010 Commissioner of Central Excise. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Crossby Advertising. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Standing counsel for the Revenue. --- 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 against order dated 21.5.2009 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, proposing following substantial questions of law of law:- i) Whether on the basis of appreciation of the clauses of M.O.U. the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that there was a joint venture partnership between IB&W and the respondent as a result of which the respondent would not be held to be service provider to IB&W? S.T.A. No.20 of 2010 ii) Whether the respondent can escape tax liability on the grounds of double taxation when the services being provided by them to IB&W are different and distinct from the services being provided by respondent to IB&W are in the nature of input service to IB&W? 2. The department created demand for service tax against the respondent, rejecting the stand of the respondent that service provider and recipient of service were joint venture entities. The Tribunal remanded the matter for consideration of the material on this aspect and to examine relationship of the respondent with the service provider. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. In view of the fact that the matter has merely been remanded to examine the relationship of the respondent with the service provider i.e. AK & I Advertisement Pvt. Ltd., we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises. 5. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 23, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2