9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d inter alia, in the business of providing asset management services and portfolio management services to its client/customers. The appellant is registered with the service tax department under the taxable category of Banking & Financial services, Leased Circuit, Business Auxiliary Service, etc., defined under Section 65 (105) of Finance Act, 1994. During the disputed period 2008-09 to 2014-15, the appellant had availed Cenvat credit in respect of various taxable services, considering the same as input services. However, during the course of audit, the department objected to the issue of availment of Cenvat credit on the ground that there is no nexus between the disputed services and the output services provided by the appellant. Further, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no discrepancy in availment of the credit and to that effect, he has submitted the statement explaining the circumstances under which the credit was availed by the appellant and the eligibility for such credit under the Cenvat Statute. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. He further submits that in respect of certain disputed services, the appellant is not eligible for the Cenvat benefit inasmuch as those services are not specifically covered under the provisions of Rule 2(l) ibid for consideration as input services. 5. Heard both sides and examined the case records. 6. I find that the lower authorities have denied the Cenvat benefit on the taxable services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am of the considered opinion that denial of Cenvat benefit in respect of convention and courier services is proper and justified, being not in conformity with the statutory provisions. Similarly, the appellant had also paid agency commission for purchase of tickets of IPL/movies for the agents and distributors. Such services also cannot be considered as input service for the purpose of availment of the Cenvat benefit. Thus, denial of Cenvat benefit amounting to Rs. 1,19,618/- is also in conformity with the statutory provisions. With regard to sponsorship of study on IFA's, the said service was availed by the appellant for the purpose of conducting its business activities during the period 2008-09 to 2010-11. Such services being availed in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been availed twice and credit availed by the appellant pretends to different agreements enter into between the appellant and the service providers. I find that amount of service tax was paid by the service provider in respect of provision of different services. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant had availed service tax benefit twice on the basis of the said invoices. Hence, denial of such benefit is not proper and justified. 3. Cenvat credit for the subsequent month have been utilized towards payment of service tax liability of the preceding month. The appellant had availed the Cenvat credit after ensuring that the payment of servie tax amount has been made in favour of the service provider. If the Credit has been availed aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
