2018 (5) TMI 835 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - appellant is an advertising agency involved various activities which included outdoor advertising, promotion of various services and goods of clients by way of display in various public places - Held that - identical issue decided in appellant own case M/s JC Decaux Advertising India Private Ltd. Versus CCE (Adjudication), New Delhi 2018 (3) TMI 109 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that All the items which are now disputed for credit are essentially used to create such structures for display of advertisement. In fact many of these items are themselves used for display without any further elaborate fabrication. In such situation, there could be no reason for denial of credit holding that these items cannot be considered as inputs for such output service - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over Cenvat credit availed by an advertising agency under the category of capital goods/inputs during the financial year 2011-2012.

Analysis:
The appellant, an advertising agency, was involved in various activities such as outdoor advertising and promotion of services and goods of clients. They were paying service tax and availing Cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services. The dispute arose when the department disallowed the credit availed by the appellant under the category of capital goods/inputs during the financial year 2011-2012. The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 92/2016 dated 17.7.2014. The Tribunal noted that the appellant used various types of duty paid inputs essential for the provision of advertising services, such as display panels, stainless steel box, power meter, electrical equipment, steel framework, mobile toilets, and police booth. These items were considered necessary for the display of advertisements by the appellant, and the denial of credit on these items was found to be unjustifiable. The Tribunal emphasized that the structures in question, like BQS, were not immovable capital assets but were made of materials like stainless steel tubes and angles. These structures were used for commercial exploitation by the appellant for advertising services and could be relocated easily. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on the earlier order and the nature of the disputed items.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, emphasizing the essential nature of the duty paid inputs used for advertising services and the commercial usability and relocatability of the structures in question. The decision was based on the findings that the items in dispute were not immovable capital assets but necessary materials for the provision of advertising services, warranting the allowance of Cenvat credit for the appellant.