Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 697 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - RCC pipe RCC Main pillar HR Sheet Conical Manhole, Cement HRC sheet etc used in fabrication of Structural support - Held that:- The issue is decided in favor of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-III [2009 (8) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that assessee is entitled to credit on the eligible inputs utilized in the generation of electricity to the extent to which they are using the produced electricity within their factory (for captive consumption) - credit allowed. Advertising agency services - The case of appellant is that since the appellant is not a advertising agency and has not rendered the advertisement agency service which otherwise has been rendered by M/s. Prime Site and M/s. Grphis Ads, neither he is the sub contractor of both the said companies as such appellant is not liable to pay the service tax on that account - Held that:- The appellant contracted with both the advertising agency to arrange or prepare or design the advertisements for their clients to be approached by them but for said advertisement to be displayed by the appellant at the sites to be constructed by him under the agreement with the MCD in his favour. Thus those two companies are rather the sub contractors of the appellant - the appellant has taken the plea that those payments are made in lieu of renting the property to both the advertising agency companies to display the advertisements of their clients but the perusal of the invoice of appellant falsifies the said submission as those amounts are mentioned to have been received for displaying the advertisements - The argument of the appellant to that effect is, therefore not sustainable. Levy of the proportionate interest and the penalties - Held that:- It is an apparent and admitted fact that the appellant has discharged his liability for the period 2007-2008 and 2010-11 qua the amount received for rendering the services of renting of immovable property but only after the issuance off the show cause notice to him that too without the payment of interest. From Section 75, of the Act payment of interest is a mandate in case there is delay in discharge of the tax liability. In view of said settled provision and the apparent and admitted delay on part of the appellant we hold that there is not infirmity in confirming the demand of the interest from the appellant - the proportionate penalties have been confirmed. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|