9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied. The adjudicating authority has mainly relied on the original returns. In fact, the appellant has filed revised returns, in that circumstances, the original return filed by the assessee are null void, the same cannot be considered any legal documents. Therefore, reliance placed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority is misplaced - thus, the appellant has correctly availed the cenvat credit on the strength of revised ST-3 returns for the period ending Sept. 2014 and March 2015, therefore, no demand of service tax can be raised against the appellant. CENVAT Credit - credit also sought to be denied on the ground that the certificate does not have the name of the service provider - HELD THAT:- The service provider is M/s Surya Cables through its proprietor and availment of services and payment thereof is not in dispute, therefore, the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant. Accordingly, the denial of Cenvat Credit of ₹ 23,54,179/- is set-aside. CENVAT credit - credit also sought to be denied on the ground that M/s North India Distribution is having these addresses in the invoices other than the address given in the registration certificate - HELD THAT:- The sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices were found to have been entered in Cenvat Credit account on different dates during the financial year 2014-2015. Since, all the input service cenvat credit invoices pertaining to cenvat availed on or before 31.03.2015 had been incorporated in accounts as well as credits were shown to have been taken in the original returns, the extra credits subsequently taken, have been incorporated on a date between 22.08.2015 (filing date of original ST 3 returns) and 19.11.2015 (filing date of revised ST 3 returns) and not on the dates mentioned in the revised account of cenvat credit. Therefore, the cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 3,76,06,728/- has been availed by back-dating the incorporation of entries. Further, the appellant has reversed cenvat credit amount to ₹ 4,48,22,512/- under different entries in the revised cenvat credit ledger account on different dates in financial year 2014-15 which leads to the conclusion that the appellant has merely substituted cenvat credit invoices without actual receipt of input services. Moreover, no supporting invoices have been furnished by the appellant despite visit by the audit party to the premises on 30.11.2015, issue of letter dated 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit of ₹ 14,83,200/- without actual receipt of input service and later omitted the same. This act of wrong availment was with the intent of consequential evasion of payment of service tax and thus, penalty is leviable on the appellant. It was further observed that the total taxable receipt in placement income account are ₹ 45,73,70,568/- in the financial year 2014-15. However, the said account has been reduced by debit entries amounting to ₹ 1,58,46,104/- during the period Sept. 2014 to March 2015 and the balance in the said account as on 31.03.2015 is ₹ 44,15,24,464/- on which the service tax has been calculated and paid by the appellant. Scrutiny of the narration of these debit entries given in the said account revealed that these entries were reversal of income incorporated previously as a result of issuance of invoices on which service tax already stood discharged. The appellant was asked to explain that these invoices have been debited to placement income account for the reason that the due payments against these invoices have not been received or is not to be received. Therefore, the appellant has sought paid the service tax of ₹ 19,58,578/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise the billing on appellant company for the placement of channel in its plateform in turn has to make the payment to various intermediaries of broadcasters. In order to save the duplicity of efforts, it has been mutually decided by the parties that instead of intermediaries raise the bill on Fastway Fstway on the appellant it has been proposed that direct billing by intermediaries to appellant company is better option. So, to execute the above arrangement billing/invoices raised by M/s Fastway on appellant company was reversed in respective books of both the companies direct billing by intermediaries in the name of appellant companies were arranged. Therefore, it is clear that the service has been provided executed by the intermediaries companies and it was only a single issue which remain undecided whether the billing for the services is to be raised directly on the MSO or on the aggregator i.e. on the appellant company which are the main beneficiary of the placement income. There are three parties in the placement of broadcasters channel business MSO on whose platform the channel of the broadcaster used to be show cased. 2 Intermediaries on the both sides i.e. representi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the appellant. 6. With regard to availment of cenvat credit of ₹ 23,54,179/- on the strength of invoices issued by M/s Surya Cables. It is alleged that the registration certificate is in the name of Shri Sarabjit Singh, Proprietor of M/s Surya Cable, therefore, cenvat credit sought to be denied alleging that the supplier of service is not registered with the department. In fact, M/s Surya Cable is owned by Shri Sarabjit Singh and there is no dispute about the availment of services, in that circumstances, cenvat credit cannot be denied. 7. Further, with regard to cenvat credit of ₹ 2,00,232/- taken on the strength of Invoices issued by M/s North India Distribution where the address is shown as 21F, Ground Floor, Jyonit, Delhi-110028 whereas the registration certificate served at the address of Chitrakoot Dham, Dwarka, New Delhi. It is his submission that it is not disputed the fact that the appellant has not received the services and the service provider has not paid the service tax and the services have been received and the service tax has been paid, therefore, the cenvat credit cannot be denied. 8. On the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
