9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1280 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - case of Revenue is that the invoices of GMIPL are not valid documents for taking credit as they do not pay the service tax after taking credit of the tax paid by the broadcaster - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - From the perusal of the invoices issued by the broadcaster, it is quite evident that the name of the appellant appears on each and every invoice of the service provider as recipient of the service. That being so the credit taken by the appellant on the basis of the invoices issued by the broadcaster cannot be denied as the invoices clearly show the recipient of service as appellant. Further now the appellants have received these services through M/s Group M Media India Pvt. Ltd., who have enclosed the invoices of the broadcaster alongwith their invoices. M/s Group M Media India Pvt. Ltd. have facilitated the provision of Broadcasting services by the Broadcaster to the appellant and have definitely acted as pure agents , for the provision of these services. The denial of the credit on the invoices of M/s Group M Media India Pvt. Ltd, taken along with the invoices of the Broadcasters, is not justified. There are no substance in the manner in which Commissioner has sought to distinguish the case of Zapak 2018 (9) TMI 759 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . On perusal of the sample invoices it is already concluded that the name of the appellant appear as client (service recipient) on the invoices issued by the Broadcaster, that being it is held that M/s. Group M Media India Pvt Ltd., is pure agent in the provision of the service. Commissioner has not recorded any finding in this order to the contrary. Since it is held in favour of the appellant on merits itself, no findings are recorded on the issue of interest, limitation and penalties. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of invoices issued by M/s Group M Media India Pvt. Ltd. (GMIPL) for availing CENVAT credit. 2. Availment of CENVAT credit on invoices issued to various offices, godowns, and C&F agents without ISD registration. 3. Alleged suppression of facts and invocation of extended period of limitation. 4. Imposition of interest and penalties. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Invoices Issued by GMIPL for Availing CENVAT Credit: - Findings by the Appellant: - The appellants argued that they correctly took CENVAT credit of service tax paid on broadcasting services received from TV channels. The invoices issued by GMIPL included the broadcaster's invoices, which mentioned the appellants as the clients. - They contended that GMIPL acted as a "pure agent" and fulfilled all conditions stipulated under Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. - The appellants relied on several judicial precedents, including the case of Zapak Digital Entertainment Ltd., which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. - Findings by the Revenue: - The Revenue argued that GMIPL did not avail credit of input services nor paid service tax shown in their invoices. Therefore, the invoices issued by GMIPL were not valid documents for availing CENVAT credit. - They cited the case of Quadrant Communications Ltd. to support their contention. - Tribunal's Analysis: - The Tribunal examined the sample invoices and found that the appellants' name appeared on each invoice issued by the broadcasters, establishing them as the service recipients. - The Tribunal held that GMIPL acted as a "pure agent" and fulfilled all conditions under Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. - The Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's attempt to distinguish the case of Zapak Digital Entertainment Ltd. and concluded that the denial of credit based on GMIPL's invoices was not justified. - The Tribunal also referred to the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., which supported the appellants' position. 2. Availment of CENVAT Credit on Invoices Issued to Various Offices, Godowns, and C&F Agents Without ISD Registration: - Findings by the Appellant: - The appellants argued that the head office's lack of ISD registration was a procedural lapse and should not lead to the denial of CENVAT credit. - They cited several judicial precedents, including the case of Doshion Ltd., which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. - Findings by the Revenue: - The Revenue contended that the invoices issued by the head office without ISD registration were not valid documents for availing CENVAT credit. - Tribunal's Analysis: - The Tribunal referred to the case of Doshion Ltd., where the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that non-registration as an ISD was a procedural lapse and did not automatically disentitle the assessee from availing CENVAT credit. - The Tribunal concluded that the denial of credit on this ground was not justified. 3. Alleged Suppression of Facts and Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation: - Findings by the Appellant: - The appellants argued that there was no suppression of facts, and the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. - They contended that interest and penalties were not imposable as the demand itself was not sustainable. - Tribunal's Analysis: - The Tribunal did not record specific findings on the issue of suppression of facts, limitation, interest, and penalties, as the appeals were allowed on merits. Conclusion: - The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders. - The Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to avail CENVAT credit based on the invoices issued by GMIPL, which included the broadcaster's invoices mentioning the appellants as the clients. - The Tribunal also held that the lack of ISD registration was a procedural lapse and did not justify the denial of CENVAT credit. - The issues of interest, limitation, and penalties were not addressed as the appeals were allowed on merits. (Order pronounced in the open court on 27.09.2022)
|
