2015 (8) TMI 1429 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - input services - advertisement and sponsorship service - Held that - the said service has been used by the assessee for display of hoardings at places like Airports, Express Highways, Flyovers, Article in Newspapers, Magazines, TV Channels etc - the issue is decided in appellant own case M/s HCL Technologies Ltd Versus C.C.E. Noida 2015 (8) TMI 595 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , wherein cenvat benefit has been extended to the disputed service - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cenvat credit eligibility for various services.
2. Consideration of development and sponsorship service as an input service.
3. Denial of cenvat credit for advertisement and sponsorship service.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue contested the cenvat credit allowed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for multiple services, arguing they did not meet the definition of input service. The services in question included pest control, event management equipment rental, car parking, canteen space rental, visa clearance, degree issuance, birth/marriage certificates, pantry boy, printing, copying, and SEZ invoice services. The assessee, on the other hand, contended that development and sponsorship services should be considered input services for cenvat credit. The Tribunal noted the Commissioner's findings in favor of the assessee, considering the nature, use, and business-related activities of the disputed services, supported by judicial precedents. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

2. Regarding the denial of cenvat credit for advertisement and sponsorship services, the Tribunal observed that the disputed services were utilized for hoardings at various locations like airports, express highways, and media platforms. The issue of whether such services qualified as input services had been settled in a previous Tribunal order (Final Order No. 52143/2015), where cenvat benefit was granted for similar services to the same assessee. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, finding no merit in the Revenue's arguments.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of both appeals based on the above considerations, affirming the eligibility of cenvat credit for the disputed services and recognizing development and sponsorship services as valid input services. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the nature and use of services in determining cenvat credit eligibility, while also emphasizing the relevance of prior judicial rulings in similar cases.