9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice Tax Comm'te, Chennai. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant are registered as a service provider under the category of 'Architect Service'. During the course of audit, it was noticed that the appellant had taken Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 14,320/- on certain ineligible services/documents which resulted in short payment of service tax to that extent and also provided Architect service to M/s. Sethusamudram Corporation Ltd. (SCL) Chennai, during the year 2007-08 and received an amount of Rs. 75,000/- from them for the said services. The service tax payable by them on this amount works out to Rs. 9,270/-. But the appellant had not paid the service tax on the above said amount. 2.1 Hence a Show Cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receiver in the competition conducted by the SCL; (iii) that the Lower Authority has erred by not considering the fact that the honorarium paid to the architects are at the discretion of the Board of Assessors and subject to the schedule 5 of the Guidelines of Council of Architecture and SCL has no authority to negotiate any terms and condition etc.; (iv) that the Lower Authority has ignored the facts that all the ingredients of the commercial contract are missing. The only intention of the appellant is to win the competition and whereas SCL intention is to give award to best architect selected by Board of Assessors. Therefore there is no contract between the competitors and SCL. Hence there is no relationship of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) As regards the money received from Sethusamudram Corporation Ltd, he submitted that the amount received was a prize money for having taken part in the competition organized by Sethusamudram Corporation Ltd. and hence there is no relationship of the service provider and service receiver; (b) that his client has taken cenvat credit of Service tax paid on the mobile phone only for the mobile/Cell Phone allotted to his client. In other words he has submitted that the other group of company namely M/s. Creative Consultant, has not availed the credit of service tax and has submitted document in their support; (c) Credit is not deniable on Insurance & Repair and Maintenanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n part in the competition organized by SCL and hence no service tax is payable on this amount. They also stated that there is no service involved and there is no relationship of the service provider and service receiver in the instant case. They had also enclosed the copy of the Request For Proposal (RFP) for participant given by the Sethusamuduram Corporation Ltd. It is evident from the proposal that the SCL has called for Architectural Designs and the Best Design which will be evaluated by a Board of Assessors consisting of eminent Architects will be awarded Honorarium. 5.2 I also find force in the argument put forward by the appellant that the only intention of the appellant is to win the competition and whereas the intention of SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cars, I find that the Lower Authority had stated that the invoices are in the name of Ms. Varsha P. Jain, the Proprietix of M/s. Creative Architects and Interiors and not in the name of the firm. In this connection, the appellant had submitted that the Architect certificate is in the name of Proprietrix, viz., Varsha Pramod Jain and still appellant is paying the service tax for service rendered by it under the name of Creative Architects & Interiors and the Department has also considered proprietrix and her concern as one but while dealing with the Cenvat Credit they consider both as different which is contrary to the law. The appellant had also produced copy of the Registration Certificate issued by the Council of Architecture and Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
