2017 (11) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - Department was of the view that appellant is not eligible to take credit on the invoices issued by M/s. Excellent 2 Publicities or Jaya TV or on the invoices issued by Jaya TV to M/s. Excellent 2 Publicities - Held that - On perusal of the invoices issued by M/s. Excellent 2 Publicities to the appellant, it is seen that the amount collected is reimbursement of service tax paid to Jaya TV. There are invoices issued by Jaya TV to M/s. Excellent 2 Publicities to show that Jaya TV has collected the service tax from M/s. Excellent 2 Publicities which was paid by the appellant. Thus, the document issued by Jaya TV to M/s. Excellent 2 Publicities together with the documents issued by M/s. Excellent 2 Publicities to appellant would establish that the appellant has paid service tax on the broadcasting service - denial of credit unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant is eligible to take CENVAT credit on service tax paid on invoices issued by M/s. Excellent 2 Publicities and Jaya TV.

Analysis:
The case involves the appellant, engaged in cement and clinker manufacturing, availing CENVAT credit on service tax paid for advertising services on Jaya TV through M/s. Excellent 2 Publicities. The department contended that the appellant was not entitled to credit on these invoices. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand. The appellant argued that they rightfully availed credit as the service tax was paid by Jaya TV and reimbursed through M/s. Excellent 2 Publicities. They cited Circular F.No. 341/43/96-TRU and relevant case laws to support their position.

The appellant's counsel highlighted that the invoices issued did not need to mention the service recipient's name as per Rule 9(2). They argued that denial of credit based on the invoicing structure was unjustified. The appellant relied on tribunal decisions to support their stance. The department reiterated their findings, emphasizing that the invoices did not clearly show the service tax payable by the appellant, as required by Rule 9(2). They argued that the circular referred to by the appellant did not address CENVAT credit eligibility.

Upon review, the tribunal examined the invoices issued by M/s. Excellent 2 Publicities and Jaya TV. It found that the amount collected was a reimbursement of service tax paid to Jaya TV. The tribunal noted that the circular clarified the intermediary's role in service tax payment. It emphasized that the dispute was about document presentation, not the actual service tax payment. Referring to previous judgments on similar matters, the tribunal concluded that the denial of credit was unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.

In conclusion, the tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the invoicing structure, service tax reimbursement, and the circular's relevance to CENVAT credit eligibility. The decision highlighted the importance of proper documentation and adherence to rules while affirming the appellant's right to avail credit in this case.