9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that these are remediable defects and denial of input credit on that basis may not be justified - Since there are technical discrepancies in relation to 18 out of 29 advertisers as brought out by the aforesaid verification report, the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision - matter on remand. CENVAT credit - Broadcasting services - advertising services - Held that: - the Dabur India Ltd. Kaushambi is the recipient of two services, namely, the service from the advertising agencies like DADBUR and broadcasting agency service by the broadcasters. The invoices of broadcasters are telescoped into the invoice of advertiser indicating service tax paid by them. The bills by the broadcasters are raised on the appellant. The amount charged by the broadcasters does not form part of the taxable value of the services provided by the advertising agency. The Service Tax charged by the advertising agency is on the commission it charges, which is mentioned in the invoices issued to M/s Dabur India Ltd. Kaushambi. We find merit in the contention of the appellant that the Broadcasting and advertisement have been done on behalf of the appellant and they ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant submits that the invoice issued by ISD, Kaushambi Ghaziabad contained all the details as required under Rule 4A(2) and the said invoice contained annexure(s) which provides the necessary details. He further stated that the Department had verified these details and no discrepancies were found. He further contended that the Department had also concluded that the credit was admissible to the appellant. He also argued that the admissibility of the credit cannot be disputed at the end of the recipients of the credit. He further submitted that the Commissioner has ignored their submissions on how the advertisement agency operates. He further stated that ISD Kaushambi has taken credit of two distinct services i.e. the advertising agency service provided by ADBUR and the broadcasting agency service provided by the broadcasters. The amount charged by the broadcasters does not form part of the taxable value of the of the service provided by the advertising agency i.e. in this case ADBUR. The service tax charged by ADBUR is on the commission it charges, which is mentioned separately in the invoice issued to the ISD, Kaushambi. He also relied upon the Board Circular No.341/43/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tified. 7. We also find that the Ld. Commissioner has held that the admissibility of credit in respect of services obtained by the ISD is required to be satisfied before the particular invoices are accepted as valid documents. In this regard, we find that in the case of Castrol India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vappi - 2013 (291) ELT 469 (Tri. Ahmd.) this Tribunal has held as below:- Cenvat credit of input services - Credit distributed by Input Service Distributor - Denial of Cenvat credit distributed by Input Service Distributor not justified when the credit distributed against the documents referred to in Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 does not exceed an amount of Service Tax paid thereof and credit of Service Tax applicable to service used for unit exclusively engaged in the manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services not distributed - In the absence of any allegation in the show cause notice indicating non-fulfilment of these conditions, no case can be said to have been made out - Demand if any regarding admissibility of credit as such, needs to be raised at the end of input service distributor and not at the unit level - Rules 7 and 9 ibid. 8. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adcasters does not form part of the taxable value of the services provided by the advertising agency. The Service Tax charged by the advertising agency is on the commission it charges, which is mentioned in the invoices issued to M/s Dabur India Ltd. Kaushambi. We find merit in the contention of the appellant that since the Broadcasting and advertisement have been done on behalf of the appellant and they have borne the incidence of Service Tax, the credit cannot be denied. In this regard, the ratio of this Tribunal judgment in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. CCE, Mumbai-III is applicable to the facts of this case wherein this Tribunal held as below:- 6. We have gone through the copies of sample invoices produced by the applicant, issued by Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. In the invoices it is specifically mentioned that the advertiser is Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (applicant). Further, we find that the advertising agencies while discharging the service tax liability have not taken into consideration the expenses in respect of the advertisement in the electronic media as clarified by the Board in the circular, dated 1-11-1996. For ready reference, the relevant p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
