Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 737 - CESTAT, MUMBAICenvat Credit - duty paying documents - services of sale of space ad time for advertisement - denial of CENVAT credit of Service Tax availed in respect of invoices to broadcaster issued in respect of advertisement of appellant broadcasted by the broadcaster - Held that: - In the instant case, the agency being an advertising agency has engaged the broadcaster for the purpose of advertisement. A perusal of the invoices clearly shows that the agency has merely acted as a conduit for transfer of money from the appellant to the broadcaster. The invoices of the broadcaster clearly show the name of advertiser as M/s Zapak Digital Entertainment Ltd. (the appellant). Name of the advertising agency is mentioned and is an agent in the said invoice. In the said circumstances, there is no doubt that the invoices of the broadcaster is issued in the name of Zapak Digital Entertainment Ltd. and not in the name of Mudra Radar as alleged in the notice. Reliance placed on the decision of the case of Marigold Coatings [2016 (5) TMI 10 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], wherein it was held that duty credit cannot be taken on the strength of endorsed invoice. It can be seen that the instant case is not a case of endorsed invoice. A perusal of invoice clearly shows that the appellant’s name mentioning as a advertiser and therefore it is an invoice issued in the name of the appellant. The advertising agency in the instant case is only act as a conduit for payment. Appeal allowed - demand set aside - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
|