9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... envat credit of service tax paid in respect of advertisements published through the service provider viz.- M/s. Crayons Advertising Ltd., New Delhi, and have distributed by their ISD challan. It further appeared that the said service provider - Crayons Advertising Ltd. is an agent of Print Media, etc. and just booking/canvassing for advertisements for print media on commission basis. Therefore, providing services to print media by Crayons Advertisement Ltd. appears liable to service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Services' and not the 'Advertising Agency Services' as defined under Section 65(105)(e) of Finance Act, 1994 and further clarified under CBEC's Circular No.96/7/2007-ST dated 28.08.2007. It further appeared that Crayons is receiving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no dispute that Cenvat Credit has been paid by M/s.Crayons Advertising Limited and the same has been availed as Cenvat Credit by the ISD challans. Since there is no dispute about the availment of cenvat credit by the unit of the assessee-appellants, there is no objection to the distribution of the cenvat credit to the assessee-appellants' unit. It has further been contended that the Department has proceeded to disallow the entire cenvat credit and such amount includes the credit availed under ISD invoices on various other services. We note that this contention has not been raised before the lower authorities and has also not been discussed by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. However, during the course of arguments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had engaged the services of various Advertising Agencies, who provided space for advertisement in print media/radio/electronics media, as well a for making /preparing/exhibiting the advertisements of the appellants. Consequently, the Advertising Agencies raised invoices on the appellant for the services rendered by them including the service tax. The service tax duly paid by the appellant was availed as cenvat credit in terms of Rule 2 (l) read with Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 8. Ld. Counsel further contended that ld. Commissioner has erred in relying on the master circular no.96/7/2007-ST, observing that it has been clarified that canvassing for advertisement for publishin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther urged that the whole exercise is by way of change of opinion as the appellant is a registered assessee filing ST-3 returns regularly. Thus, the demand invoking extended period of limitation is bad on this score. It is further urged that similar issue arose before this Tribunal before a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Bansal Classes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST, wherein vide Final Order No.52488/2018 dated 11.07.2018, it has been held that the assesee is entitled to cenvat credit. 10. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 11. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that show cause notice is wholly mis-conceived as the Department has attempted to classify the service in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
