9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s there is no allegation that the services covered by these bills have not been accounted for by the appellant. The appellant has also produced the invoice dated 19/08/2010 in support of letter dated 15/12/2010. Merely that these letters are not in the form of invoice cannot be a reason to disallow the Cenvat credit as substantial compliance of the provision under Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules have been made. We are not inclined to accept Letter of acceptance dated 22/02/2010 for a service tax amount of ₹ 38,048/- as a proper document as the same does not bear the registration no. of the service provider and cannot be considered as bill/invoice/ challan in terms of Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant has fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was necessary for them to acquire space and time rights of advertisement display from JDA which was contingent upon providing and maintaining certain civic amenities; erecting kiosks, etc.; providing and maintaining escalator -elevators, maintaining the roads; making security arrangements etc. for JDA. These services were to be provided to JDA on BOT i.e. build, operate and transfer basis. To provide all these services to JDA, the appellant sub-contracted all these works to sub-contractors and incurred expenses on maintenance of road and beautification of road service; security service, supply; installation and commissioning of escalators/elevators; fabrication, erection and commissioning of Unipoles and gantries; construction Misc. r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es integrally connected with the business of the assessee. He also relied upon case law in Rane TRW Steering Systems Pvt. Ltd. [2010] (19) S.T.R.-251(Tri.-Chennai) in support that that definition of input service is wide and the impugned services are activities related to their business of providing output service. On the other hand the learned DR has argued that the input service credit on impugned services is not available for the reason that if the appellant had paid the consideration money to the JDA for obtaining space or time for advertisement , the appellant would not become eligible for availing of the Cenvat credit because no such service tax was paid by the JDA. Thus the appellant would have to pay service tax on advertisements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisements and any service undertaken to obtain these rights was integrally connected with providing the output service of advertisement agency. Thus, we have no doubt to hold that the impugned service obtained from the sub-contractors were input services used for proving the output taxable service of advertisement agency. It has no relation with the fact whether or not JDA has discharged any service tax on space and time rights of advertisement. This reasoning of the learned DR does not hold ground for another reason because the JDA, inter-alia, is not into the business of earning income from advertisement rights but they are in fact of performing the public service of providing basic amenities to the citizens which may not attract any tax. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were merely procedural irregularities and substantial benefit could not be denied on procedural irregularities in terms of case law in Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., Vs. CCE- 2010 (260) E.L.T. - 106(Tri.-Del.), Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (242) E.L.T. - 45(Tri.-Mum.) and BSNL Vs. CCE 2012 (28) S.T.R.-624 (Tri.-Chennai). He further argued that the whole demand was time-barred as the appellants have filed ST-3 returns regularly showing availment of Cenvat credit. 5. We have carefully examined the availability of Cenvat credit on the basis of documents issued by the DMRC we find that the substantial particulars i.e. name and address of the service provider, service tax registration number of the service provider, amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 as the appellant has failed to justify taking of lawful credit of ₹ 38,048/- on the basis of any acceptable document. The extended period of limitation as well as the equivalent penalty of ₹ 38,048/- under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and interest as applicable under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 on this amount of ₹ 38,048/- is also upheld. Consequential benefit, if any, on the demands set-aside is allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and is dismissed so far as demand of ₹ 38,048/- is concerned. (Order pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
