Law and Practice : Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser
Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 659 - AT - Service Tax
Commercial training or coaching services - prospective insurance agent - import of ‘intellectual property service’ - CENVAT Credit of non-registered branches.
Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the category ‘commercial training or coaching services’ wherein they provide training to prospective insurance agent – Held that:- The issue is covered by the decision in the case of NIS SPARTA LTD. VERSUS CST, NEW DELHI [2015 (1) TMI 504 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that Training imparted by the appellants does not fall under the ambit of Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994 as the training imparted by the appellant is having the recognition of law and covered under exclusion clause of Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994 - demand set aside.
Whether appellant is liable to pay service tax on import of ‘intellectual property service’ – ₹ 48.73 lakhs? - Held that:- The burden to prove that the activity is liable to service tax, is on the Revenue. In the present case, as per the agreement, admittedly, there is no consideration qua for IPR and the Revenue is not able to show any other evidence. Hence, when there is no consideration for IPR then the demand of service tax under IPR is liable to be set aside - demand set aside.
Whether the appellant have wrongly availed and utilised Cenvat credit on the invoices which was addressed to separate unit, working, for about the same premises and whether appellant have wrongly availed and utilised Cenvat credit in respect of non-registered branches– ₹ 88.09 lakhs? - Held that:- Name of the appellant i.e. from ‘NIS Sparta’ to “NIS Sparta (Division of Mudra Communications Pvt. Ltd.)’ had been changed in accordance with High Court (permission) order. Moreover, the department is not disputing that the services mentioned in the invoices has been used by the appellant. It is settled law that substantive benefit cannot be denied merely on the procedural lapse - credit allowed.
Demand and Penalties set aside - Appeal allowed.