9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WWIL. The broadcasters have issued the invoices in the name of the Appellant with applicable service tax which was duly paid by the Appellant. These broadcastings services were received by the Appellant as an input service for providing the taxable output service of managing the system network of WWIL - it is also found that the Ld. Commissioner has not properly gone through the agreements between the appellant and the WWIL and the broadcasting agencies and has wrongly come to the conclusion that the WWIL was the service provider of cable network and they were entitled to avail cenvat credit on the invoices issued by broadcasting agencies and not the appellant. The Ld. Commissioner has not considered the material on fact that there is no agreement between WWIL and the broadcastings agencies and the agreement between the appellant and various broadcasting agencies makes no reference of the agreement between WWIL and the appellant. Therefore, the agreements entered with the broadcasting agencies were not on behalf of WWIL, but on its own behalf by the appellant. Further, perusal of the invoices issued by the broadcasting agencies to the appellant on which the appellant has pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said agreement, the appellant company was eligible for a consideration of 90% of the revenues generated by Wire Wireless (India) Ltd in the appellant company's jurisdictional area during the relevant period. During the course of Audit, it was observed that the appellant company were availing /utilizing CENVAT Credit of the service Tax paid on the invoices raised by various Broadcasting agencies such as ZEE, star etc on it but the Cable TV Networking business including cable operator connectivity and cable network used for transmission/ retransmission of cable TV signals exclusively belongs to M/s Wire and Wireless (India) Ltd and thus M/s Wire and Wireless (India) Ltd and not the appellant company are entitled for availing CENVAT Credit of the service tax paid on the invoices raised by various Broadcasting agencies such as ZEE, star etc. On these allegations, a show cause notice dated 09.04.2010 was issued to the appellant demanding Rs 84,71,295/ wrongly availed and utilized by them under Rule 14 of the CANVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with section 73 of the finance Act, 1994 by invoking the proviso to the said section along with interest and penalty. 3. After following d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evident from the Agreement entered into by the appellant with broadcasters for performing the services to WWIL. She further submitted that the appellant is utilising the broadcasting services for rendering the output service i.e., BAS. She also submitted that there is no agreement between WWIL and the broadcasting agencies and the agreements between appellant and various broadcasting agencies makes no reference of the Agreement between WWIL and the Appellant and therefore as per the Ld. Counsel, the agreements entered with the broadcasting agencies were not on behalf of WWIL but on its own account by the Appellant. She further submitted that the invoices issued by the broadcasting agencies were in the name of the appellant and not in the name of WWIL. Further, the Appellant raises the invoice on WWIL for rendering the BAS . She also referred to Rule 3 of CCR which provides that the provider of taxable service is allowed to take credit of the service tax paid on any input service received by the provider of output services and the said Cenvat credit can be utilized for payment of service tax on any output service. She also submitted that the broadcasting service were utilised by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utput service of managing the system network of WWIL. We also find that the Ld. Commissioner has not properly gone through the agreements between the appellant and the WWIL and the broadcasting agencies and has wrongly come to the conclusion that the WWIL was the service provider of cable network and they were entitled to avail cenvat credit on the invoices issued by broadcasting agencies and not the appellant. In this regard, it is pertinent to reproduced the definition of Input Service as provided under rule 2(l) of CCR which is herein below:- input service means any service, - (i) used by a provider of output service for providing an output service; or (ii) used by a manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products upto the place of removal and includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to business, such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
