TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand of service tax amounting to ₹ 14,75,497/- - duty paying invoices - demand only on the two grounds that some of the invoices on which the cenvat credit was availed, was in the name of one of the branch of the appellant which was not registered with the Service Tax department or where the invoices were in the name of the Seagram Manufacturing Pvt Ltd. - HELD THAT:- It is a matter of record that Seagram Manufacturing Pvt Ltd has been merged with the appellant s firm and therefore, on the invoices which are in the name of the Seagram Manufacturing Pvt Ltd, legally cenvat credit of the service tax on such invoices cannot be denied to the appellant as both the entities namely Seagram Manufacturing Pvt Ltd and the appellant have merged together. We find that the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 do not provide that input service needs to be received in the premises of output service provider, therefore, the cenvat credit cannot be denied on this ground also. Thus, there is no violation of the Cenvat Credit Rules - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/59896/2013-[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 60795/2019 - Dated:- 2-4-2019 - HON BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the category of Business Auxiliary Service . (ii) SCN C.No. 26(4940ST/Adt/Seagram/GpIII/339/06/23144 dated 15.09.2008 - The service tax has been demanded by the department under the category of Franchisee Service ; (iii) SCN C.No. D-III/ST/R-V/SCN/Seagram/295/08 dated 06.10.2009 demand is under category of Franchisee Service ; (iv) SCN C.No. D-III/ST/R-V/SCN/Seagram/295/08/4443 dated 08.08.2010 demand is under Franchisee Service ; (v) SCN C.No. D-III/ST/R-V/SCN/Seagram/295/08/4443 dated 21.09.2011 demand is under Franchisee Service . In all the above show cause notices, the demand has been made by the department under Franchisee Service and in total, a service tax demand amounting to ₹ 42,22,18,962/- has been demanded and reversal of the cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 53,99,881/- has also been made. The above mentioned five show cause notices have been adjudicated by the learned Commissioner by his order-in-original no. 41-45/AKM/CST/ADJ/2013 dated 03.07.2013, where under the demand of service tax of ₹ 8,55,48,129/- as demanded in SCN 43/INTDGCEI/HQ/05/2052 dated 07.12.2006 has been dropped and the dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve. A chart along with the ST-3 returns filed during the relevant period are produced by them in the appeal paperbook. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions in the cases of Vijaynand Roadlines Ltd vs. CCE, Belgaum 2007 (7) STR 219 (Tri. Bang); Idea Cellular Ltd vs. CCE, Rohtak 2009 (16) STR 712 (Tri. Del) and AC Nielson Org Marg Pvt Ltd vs. CST 2018 (12) GSTL 322 (Tri. Mum). 4. On the other hand, the learned A.R. reiterates the findings in the impugned order-in-order. 5. We have heard rival submissions made by both the sides and perused the record of the appeal. 6. From the perusal of the relevant documents and impugned order-in-original, we find that the matter is no longer res integra as the demand of service tax under the category of Franchisee Service as the same has been settled in the case of M/s Diageo India Pvt Ltd (supra). The relevant extract of this decision is reproduced herein below : 9. The terms of the agreement, CBUs to manufacture the products for and on behalf of the appellant at the plant of CBU using the appellant s equipment. The agreement clearly states that the CBU has no right to use the intellectua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pay service tax. As the said issue of liability was settled by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association (supra) which was confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable on that count also. 7. Since the facts of this matter are similar to the one decided by the above mentioned decision of this Tribunal, after follow the same, we hold that the demand under category of Franchisee Service confirmed by the adjudicating authority by the impugned order-inoriginal is not legally sustainable; therefore, we set aside the same. 8. So far, as the demand of service tax amounting to ₹ 14,75,497/- is concerned, same has been confirmed only on the two grounds that some of the invoices on which the cenvat credit was availed, was in the name of one of the branch of the appellant which was not registered with the Service Tax department or where the invoices were in the name of the Seagram Manufacturing Pvt Ltd. We find that it is a matter of record that Seagram Manufacturing Pvt Ltd has been merged with the appellant s firm and therefore, on the invoices which are in the name of the Seagram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
