9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Ltd. [2016 (12) TMI 737 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], is applicable on all fours to the case on hand, where Reliance placed on the decision of the case of Marigold Coatings [2016 (5) TMI 10 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], wherein it was held that duty credit cannot be taken on the strength of endorsed invoice. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/00310/2011 - FINAL ORDER NO. 41528/2018 - Dated:- 19-4-2018 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant: Shri N. Viswanathan, Adv. For the Respondent: Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) ORDER Per Madhu Mohan Damodhar: The facts of the case are that M/s. Prakatana Pvt. Ltd., [hereinafter referred to as P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of service tax discharges by OMS indicated but also they have they have also indicated the quantum of service tax discharged by the broadcaster. He further submits that in turn the appellant also discharges service tax liability by showing the bills raised on Amurtanjan after adding their commission to the bill. Therefore, there is no break in the link of Cenvat credit chain and hence, the credit availed by them cannot be assailed. He further submits that even in the bills raised by the broadcaster, there is a specific mention of the appellant indicated as advertiser . Ld. Advocate places reliance on the ratio of the case law on the Tribunal's decision in M/s. Zapak Digital Entertainment Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions. We find that it is not disputed that the appellants have engaged the services of an agency for advertisement. Agencies are by definition working on behalf of their client. In the instant case, the agency being an advertising agency has engaged the broadcaster 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
