9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the period 2007 2008 and 2008 - 2009 wrongly availed the CENVAT credit of Rs.1,30,17,458/- on input service of advertisement service rendered in the capacity of pure agent of SMF, which is contrary to the definition of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. A show-cause notice dated 6.5.2010 was issued proposing demand of tax along with interest and penalty. The Commissioner disallowed the credit and confirmed the demand of tax and imposed penalty of equal amount along with interest. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the applicant submits that they are the asset management company. The advertisement expenses were incurred for promoting investment in Mutual Fund Scheme, which would promote their own business. So it is an input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndings of the Commissioner. He submits that the applicant is providing the financial advice to mutual fund to invest the fund which is the output service. It is contended that the applicant incurred the expenses for advertisement as a pure agent of mutual fund. In this context, he drew the attention of the Bench the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENAVT Credit Rules, 2004. It is also contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC) held that inclusion of the value in the assessable value of the final product would not prove that the goods have been used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. Similarly, the cost was included in the taxab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by mutual funds. According to the Revenue, in terms of Rule 5 of Service Tax Rules, 2006, the applicant acted as a pure agent of the mutual fund and they incurred the advertisement expenses for the benefit of the mutual funds. It is also contended that the applicants outward service is only investment and advisory services rendered to the mutual funds, for which advertisement cannot be input service. Hence, it is not an input service for applicant and therefore they cannot avail the credit on the same. Prima facie, we find that there is some force in the submission of the learned counsel that the applicant incurred advertisement expenses for mutual funds, and it cannot be treated as input service. It is also seen that the Central Excise of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
