9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18,77,641/- on the irregular CENVAT credit taken on broadcasting service. Appeal No.ST/1406/2010 is filed by the Department against the order passed by Commissioner(Appeals) who though confirmed the tax liability on broadcasting services as above, set aside the demand of interest and the penalties imposed. 2. The assessee is registered with the Service Tax department under the category of advertising services. They were engaged in the activity of buying of time slots Prasar Bharti and selling it to various persons. The activity of selling of times slots was brought under the tax net w.e.f. 01/05/2006 under the category of "sale of space or time for Advertisement" and consequently the service tax paid by Prasar Bharti under the category of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f M/s. Ind-swift Laboratories ltd. [2009(240) ELT 328 (P&H)] and also in the case of CCE, Pondicherry Vs. Superfil Products [2009(237) ELT 551 (Tri. Chennai)]. The commissioner(Appeals) has rightly set aside the demand of interest. At that relevant time, the decision in the case of Bill Forge (P) Ltd. [2012 (279) ELT 209 (Kar.)] was not available. That the said judgment squarely covers that situation in the case of assessee, since the assessee has reversed the credit before utilisation. The Commissioner(Appeals) has set aside the penalty invoking Section 80 of the Act. The issue whether assessee is eligible to avail credit on broadcasting services during the relevant period was highly contentious and the commissioner(Appeals) has set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lling in the ambit of the service 'Sale of space or time for advertisement'. Prior to the period 1-5-2006, the activity undertaken by the appellants being not a taxable service, the question of payment of any service tax and the eligibility of Broadcasting Service as an input service for the Appellants does not arise. Thus, any credit taken by the appellants prior to the period 1-5-2006 is improper and liable to be recovered. As seen from the impugned demand notice, during the period November, 2004 to April 2006 and amount of Rs. 18,77,641/- was taken as credit and hence I uphold the order of the lower authority disallowing the said amount. However, on the question of demand of interest and imposition of penalty, thought the appellants have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit is wrongly utilized. Thus it is seen that the Commissioner(Appeals) has taken note of the fact that the credit has been reversed before utilisation. The learned counsel for the assessee has also produced copies of the ST3 returns to show that the credit has been reversed before utilisation during the disputed period. Therefore, I hold that the Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly set aside the demand of interest. Further the judgment in the case of Bill Forge (P) Ltd (supra) squarely applies to the issue. 6. The learned AR has also vehemently argued with regard to the imposition of penalty. The issue whether the appellant is eligible for credit on the broadcasting service prior to 01/05/2006 as well as after an interpretational issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
