TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e documents, it is for the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner to verify the accounts of the assessee and arrive at a conclusion whether credit is eligible or not. In the present case, as there is no dispute with regard to the service tax paid or the availment of services by the respondents, there are no reasons to deny the credit. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal Nos. E/00311 & 00312/2012 - Final Order No. 41931-41932 / 2018 - Dated:- 29-6-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri K. P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Appellant Shri M. N. Bharthi, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued proposing to disallow the Cenvat Credit availed on Broadcasting Services, which, after due process of law, culminated in confirming the demand along with interest and also for imposing penalties. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit on Broadcasting Services and dropped the proceedings initiated in the Show Cause Notice. Aggrieved, the Department is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the Department, the learned AR, Shri. K. P. Muralidharan, supported the grounds of appeal. He submitted that on perusal of the invoice raised by the Advertising Agency, it indicates that the service tax on Broadcasting Services is paid by the Broadcasting Service Organization and then passed on to the Advertising Agency, who has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic media. For this reason, the invoices are issued by the broadcasting channel/agency to the intermediary (Advertising Agencies) who, in turn, issue invoices to the appellant showing the reimbursement of the service tax collected from the appellant. That, therefore, the appellant has rightly availed credit. He relied upon the decision in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. C.C.E. [2014-TIOL-1246 CESTAT-Mum.], C.C.E. Vs. SAS Company [2010 (258) E.L.T. 253] and Jyothi Laboratories Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Puducherry (Final Order No. 41527/2015 dt. 16.11.2015) and in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Trichy (Final Order No. 42438/2017 dt. 23.10.2017). 4. Heard both sides. 5. At the outset it has to be stated that the Departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
