2016 (12) TMI 737

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sing agency such as M/s Optimum Media Solutions (also known as Mudra Radar). The advertising agency acted as a facilitator between the broadcaster and the advertiser i.e. the appellant. The broadcaster raised the invoices on the advertising agency wherein it was clearly mentioned the name of advertiser as well as the advertising agency. The amount charged by the broadcaster is paid by the advertising agency and subsequently reimbursed by the advertiser. In the instant case, the appellant are the advertiser and they have claimed CENVAT Credit on the strength of the invoices issued by the broadcaster in favour of the appellants and the advertising agency. A demand show-cause notice was issued to the appellant seeking to deny the credit of Ser .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sion. It can be seen from the invoices that the Service Tax for the commission of advertiser is paid by Mudra Radar while the Service Tax on the fee of the broadcaster is paid by SIPL. In support of the said assertion, learned Counsel had also taken us through the invoices issued to the SIPL. From such invoices, it is seen that the said invoices has been issued in favour of the advertiser namely, M/s Zapak Digital Entertainment Ltd. (the appellant) and the invoices also feature the name of the agency namely, Mudra Radar. The amount of Service Tax paid on the broadcasting fee is indicated in this invoice. The learned Counsel argued that in these circumstances, the credit taken by them is on the strength of two different invoices. In respec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... adcaster for the purpose of advertisement. A perusal of the invoices clearly shows that the agency has merely acted as a conduit for transfer of money from the appellant to the broadcaster. The invoices of the broadcaster clearly show the name of advertiser as M/s Zapak Digital Entertainment Ltd. (the appellant). Name of the advertising agency is mentioned and is an agent in the said invoice. In the said circumstances, there is no doubt that the invoices of the broadcaster is issued in the name of Zapak Digital Entertainment Ltd. and not in the name of Mudra Radar as alleged in the notice. Learned AR has relied on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie (supra). It is seen that the said decision of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X