2018 (6) TMI 1299 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - denial on the ground that the invoices are not in the name of the appellant - input services - event management service - Held that - As the appellant has shown their bonafide that the service has been received by them and the same has not been denied by the Revenue with the help of cogent evidence. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the invoices initially issued in the name of Head Office which were rectified and certified that the services actually received by the appellant - credit allowed. Event management service - input service or not? - Held that - The appellant is the recipient of the service and the same has not been considered by the adjudicating authority - It is evident from ST-3 Returns that appellant is engaged in selling of space for time slot for advertising and on the said service the appellant is paying service tax. It is not alleged in the show cause notice that appellant is not paying service tax - appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on event management service as Input service. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Cenvat credit denial on input services, validity of invoices, classification of event management service as input service

Cenvat Credit Denial on Input Services:
The appellant contested the denial of Cenvat credit on input services, specifically event management services, due to discrepancies in the invoices not being in the appellant's name. The appellant argued that although the invoices were initially issued in the name of the Head Office, a certificate from the service provider clarified that the services were indeed provided to the appellant. The appellant maintained that the event management service was utilized for promoting advertisement space, making it an eligible input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Validity of Invoices:
The issue of invoices not being in the appellant's name was addressed by the appellant providing a certificate from the service provider and rectified invoices, demonstrating that the services were intended for the appellant and not the Head Office. The tribunal found that the Revenue did not dispute this evidence during adjudication, leading to the conclusion that the appellant acted in good faith in rectifying the invoices. Consequently, the appellant was deemed entitled to avail Cenvat credit based on the rectified and certified invoices.

Classification of Event Management Service as Input Service:
The tribunal deliberated on whether event management services qualified as an input service for the appellant. The appellant argued that the events organized were for promoting the advertisement space offered to clients, making it an integral part of their business. Contrary to the appellant's stance, the adjudicating authority contended that the event management service was not directly related to the appellant's output service, as it was provided to the clients using the space, not the appellant. However, the tribunal noted discrepancies in the authority's conclusion, as invoices clearly indicated the appellant as the recipient of the services. Additionally, the tribunal highlighted that the appellant had paid service tax on their output service, strengthening their claim to avail Cenvat credit on the event management service as a valid input service.

In conclusion, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant's appeal and granting any consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the importance of valid evidence, such as invoices and certificates, in establishing entitlement to Cenvat credit on input services, while also clarifying the eligibility criteria for input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules.