Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 399 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - it was alleged that documents did not have the requisite information as required under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules and there was no indication whether the distributed credit is in respect of duty paying unit or the exempted unit - Held that: - It was reported that the invoices issued by service providers on the basis of which M/s Dabur India Ltd. had taken the impugned credit and distributed to their unit at Baddi contained the details/information i.e. name & address of service provider, service tax registration number, invoice/bill number & date, name of service, value of taxable service and service tax paid/payable etc and no other discrepancy has been noticed except the following discrepancies relating to invoices of M/s Thakur ji Sons, wherein it was found that the service tax registration number is mentioned on invoices as Applied For instead of PAN based registration number. On the invoices of 18 others services providers, the discrepancy was that Service Tax registration number mentioned in invoices was not PAN based registration number. We find that these are remediable defects and denial of input credit on that basis may not be justified - Since there are technical discrepancies in relation to 18 out of 29 advertisers as brought out by the aforesaid verification report, the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision - matter on remand. CENVAT credit - Broadcasting services - advertising services - Held that: - the Dabur India Ltd. Kaushambi is the recipient of two services, namely, the service from the advertising agencies like DADBUR and broadcasting agency service by the broadcasters. The invoices of broadcasters are telescoped into the invoice of advertiser indicating service tax paid by them. The bills by the broadcasters are raised on the appellant. The amount charged by the broadcasters does not form part of the taxable value of the services provided by the advertising agency. The Service Tax charged by the advertising agency is on the commission it charges, which is mentioned in the invoices issued to M/s Dabur India Ltd. Kaushambi. We find merit in the contention of the appellant that the Broadcasting and advertisement have been done on behalf of the appellant and they have borne the incidence of Service Tax, the credit cannot be denied. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
|