9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his appeal has also been decided in favour of the appellant in the appellant‟s own case. On an identical issue, for period 2006-07 to June 2012, the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the appellant in M/S. KUSUM HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.C.E., JAIPUR-I [ 2018 (2) TMI 1408 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] . For the period July 2012 to November 2013 also, the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the appellant in M/S. KUSUM HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.C.E., ALWAR [ 2018 (7) TMI 919 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] . For the period December 2013 to August 2014, the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the appellant in KUSUM HEALTHCARE PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, ALWAR [ 2021 (10) TMI 229 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] . Thus, as the issue involved has been decided in favour of the appellant in the own case of the appellant for pre-negative list and post-negative list, the demand deserves to be set aside. Business Promotion Expenses - HELD THAT:- The said amount was directly paid by the appellant and even the invoices were raised upon the appellant and not the representative offices - amount not taxable. Advertisement services - HELD THAT:- According to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts operations. These expenses are in the nature of rent, security, electricity etc. 4. The department entertained a view that the expenses incurred by the appellant are liable to service tax on reverse charge basis. Earlier also, show cause notices were issued to the appellant and they were adjudicated upon. A summary of the proceedings is as follows: S. No. Date of show cause notice Relevant Period Service Tax Appeal Number 1. 13.10.2011 April 2006 to Mar 2011 ST/57891/2013 (April 2006 to March 2011) and ST/51216/2014 (April 2011 to June 2012) were disposed of by an order dated 12.01.2018. The Tribunal a) set aside the demand under Business Auxiliary services; b) Upheld the demand under Advertisement services, but restricted the demand to normal period of limitation. 2. 03.12.2012 April 2011 to Dec 2011 3. 18.04.2013 Jan 2012 to June 2012 4. 25.4.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3; is liable to be set aside; (v) The service tax demand on advertisement expenses‟ of Rs. 2,60,90,008/- is liable to be set aside; and (vi) Interest and penalties are not imposable on the appellant. 7. Shri Harshwardhan, learned authorized representative appearing for the Department, however, supported the impugned order. 8. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the Department have been considered. ORDER IS BASED ON OBSOLETE PROVISIONS 9. The first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order has been passed on obsolete provisions of law which are not applicable for the relevant period deserves to be accepted. Though the show cause notice dated 18.4.2016 invoked provisions of law which were applicable during the relevant period, but the impugned order held that Business Auxiliary/Business Support/Advertisement Agency/Business Consultant services received by the appellant were liable to service tax as per the provisions of the erstwhile section 66A of the Finance Act, read with rule 3 of the 2006 Rules. The relevant findings are re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 51216 of 2014. For the period July 2012 to November 2013 also, the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the appellant by order dated June 13, 2018 passed in Service Tax Appeal No. 52357 of 2015. For the period December 2013 to August 2014, the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the appellant by order dated October 01, 2021 passed in Service Tax Appeal No. 53015 of 2016. 11. In M/s Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE, Jaipur [ S . T. Appeal No. 57891/2013 S.T. Appeal No. 51216/2014 decided on January 12, 2018 ] which relates to the period from April 2006 to June 2012, the Tribunal held as follows : 6. We find that the Revenue has taken a stand that since as per the proviso, a branch office located outside India shall be treated as a separate business establishment, the services rendered by such establishment should be treated for tax liability. In this connection, we note, similar dispute came before the Tribunal for tax liability under the very same tax entry in Torrent Pharmaceutical Ltd. - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 97 (Tri.-Ahmd.). The issue of the expenditure incurred by the appellant with reference to the branch office located abroad, which was involved in activities, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Expenses Amount 1 Catalogues 2,59,75,847 2 Leaflets 80,945 3 Souvenir Products 5,00,517 4 Calendar 4,81,826 5 Tear Sheet 1,51,073 6 Polythene Bag 47,410 7 Miscellaneous Items 68,005 8 Vouchers/Coupons for purchase of materials 21,70,15,023 9 Insurance Charges 21,784 10 Space Charges 6,95,591 11 Electricity Charges for CPHI 1,21,577 12 Stand Cleaning/Designing/Installation 12,72,624 13 Foreign Trip Sponsorship Charges 1,11,67,064 Total 25,75,99,28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of Rs. 2,60,90,008/- under Advertisement expenses pertains to the following expenses S. No. Description of Expenses Amount Service Tax Already Paid 1 Expenses for Non-Print Media Advertisements 2,53,42,307 31,41,507 2 Expenses for Print-Media Advertisements 7,47,701/- NIL Total 2,60,90,008/- 31,41,507 19. According to the appellant, both prior and post the amendment of clause (g) of section 66D of the Finance Act, sale of slots in advertisement in print media did not attract service tax liability. The appellant had discharged service tax liability on expenses for non-print media advertisements. The services of advertisement in respect of print-media is exempted in terms of the negative list of services under section 66D(g) of the Finance Act. Thus, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax on the service of advertisement in print- media. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
