2018 (9) TMI 759 - HC - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - Agency Commission - media/broadcasters - Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law was the Tribunal right in holding that the Respondent is entitled to take the input service credit on Agency Commission as well as the Service Tax charged by the media/broadcasters as shown in the said invoices? Held that - The grievance of the Appellant-Revenue is that the invoices issued by the broadcaster also shows the name of the advertising agency, therefore, the Respondent could not avail of the CENVAT credit on the basis of the above invoices - the impugned order of the Tribunal has rendered a finding of fact that the invoices as issued by the broadcaster are in the name of the Respondent. It also holds on a finding of fact that the advertising agency is merely shown as an agent of the Respondent. This finding of fact is not shown to be perverse. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding CENVAT credit entitlement based on invoices issued by broadcaster through advertising agency.

Analysis:
The appeal under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 challenges the Tribunal's order dated 10th July 2015. The main question raised by the Revenue is whether the Respondent is entitled to claim CENVAT credit on Agency Commission and Service Tax charged by media/broadcasters as shown in the invoices. The Respondent, engaged in selling space and time for advertisement, claimed CENVAT credit based on invoices from broadcasters facilitated by an advertising agency. The Revenue contended that the Respondent cannot claim credit as the invoices were issued in the name of the agency, not the Respondent.

The Tribunal, in its order, examined the nature of the invoices and found that the agency was merely a conduit for money transfer from the Respondent to the broadcaster. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Respondent was entitled to avail CENVAT credit based on these invoices. The Appellant-Revenue's grievance was that the invoices displayed the advertising agency's name, making the Respondent ineligible for credit. However, the Tribunal's finding that the invoices were in the name of the Respondent and the agency acted as an agent was upheld as not being perverse.

The High Court, after considering the facts and the Tribunal's findings, concluded that the proposed question did not give rise to any substantial question of law and therefore dismissed the appeal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Respondent was entitled to the CENVAT credit based on the invoices issued by the broadcaster. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.