9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssa. Penalties were also imposed upon M/s Parle Agro Pvt.Ltd. Silvassa and M/s Parle Agro (Pvt.) Ltd., Andheri (East), Mumbai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that main appellant M/s Parle Agro Pvt.Ltd., Silvassa are engaged in the manufacture of non-alcoholic beverages base (NABB) or soft drink concentrate. Main appellant took CENVAT Credit of Advertisement services availed by the Headquarters M/s Parle Agro (Pvt.) Ltd., Andheri (East) under ISD invoices for the services tax paid on the finished products i.e. non-alcoholic beverages Frooty, Appy etc. It is the case of the Revenue that NABB concentrate is used in the manufacture of Frooty, Appy etc which are fully exempted from payment of Central Excise duty as per Notification No.03/2006-C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the end products 'Frooti' and 'Appy' will be admissible as 'input services' under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for NABB concentrate manufactured by the appellants as increase in production of the end products, for which advertisements is done, will also increase the consumption of their final products NABB. That the cost of Advertisement done by the appellants gets included in the assessable value of NABB. Ld.Advocate heavily relied upon the case law of Coca Cola India Pvt.Ltd. Vs CCE Pune-II, reported as [2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom)]. He made the bench go through the issues framed before Mumbai High Court, in Para 1 of this judgment, and Paras 21 and 22 of this case to drive home the point that Service Tax credit on advertisement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice Tax paid with respect to exempted final product. He made the bench go through Paras 28 & 34.8 of the order passed by the adjudicating authority to argue that OIO dt.8.2.2010/5.3.2010 has been correctly passed against the appellants. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records as well as the written submissions made by the appellants. Ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has mainly argued the case of his clients on the grounds that advertisements services availed by the appellants with respect to the finished goods 'Frooti' and 'Appy' are availed in or in relation to the manufacture of NABB concentrate and that such CENVAT Credit is admissible to the appellants as per Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is that the credit should not be attributable to services used in manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services. There are no other restrictions under the rules. The restrictions sought to be applied by the Department in this case in limiting the distribution of the Service Tax credit made in respect of the Malur Unit on the ground that the services were used in respect of the Cuttack Unit finds no mention in the relevant rules. As such, restricting the distribution of Service Tax credit in a manner as has been done by the impugned order of the lower appellate authority (original authority had approved of such distribution) cannot be upheld. In case the Department wants to place such restriction as is sought to be place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
