TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gement service availed by the it for conducting training, meetings etc., will be considered as input service for the purpose of availment of the CENVAT benefit - the Cenvat demand amounting to ₹ 56,41,656/- disallowed by the department cannot be sustained. Convention service provided by the service providers to the appellant - HELD THAT:- Those services are in context with hotel accommodation of the employees, booking of the banquet hall, diwali celebration of employees and distributors, courier charges for sending diwali gifts etc. The said services availed on payment of service tax under the accounting head of convention service cannot be considered as input service under un-amended as well as the amended definition of input se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit. CENVAT Credit - Availment of Cenvat credit twice on the same invoices - HELD THAT:- The amount of service tax was paid by the service provider in respect of provision of different services. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant had availed service tax benefit twice on the basis of the said invoices - denial of such benefit is not proper and justified. Cenvat credit for the subsequent month have been utilized towards payment of service tax liability of the preceding month - HELD THAT:- If the Credit has been availed after the payment of service tax to the service provider, the same is inconformity with the Cenvat statute - such factual aspects have to be examined at the original stage - matter is remanded to the origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The appellant is registered with the service tax department under the taxable category of Banking Financial services, Leased Circuit, Business Auxiliary Service, etc., defined under Section 65 (105) of Finance Act, 1994. During the disputed period 2008-09 to 2014-15, the appellant had availed Cenvat credit in respect of various taxable services, considering the same as input services. However, during the course of audit, the department objected to the issue of availment of Cenvat credit on the ground that there is no nexus between the disputed services and the output services provided by the appellant. Further, department had also objected to the fact that credit taken is also not admissible inasmuch as such credit is not inconformity w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der which the credit was availed by the appellant and the eligibility for such credit under the Cenvat Statute. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. He further submits that in respect of certain disputed services, the appellant is not eligible for the Cenvat benefit inasmuch as those services are not specifically covered under the provisions of Rule 2(l) ibid for consideration as input services. 5. Heard both sides and examined the case records. 6. I find that the lower authorities have denied the Cenvat benefit on the taxable services viz. event management, convention, courier charges, agency commission, sponsorship service on the ground that those s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and justified, being not in conformity with the statutory provisions. Similarly, the appellant had also paid agency commission for purchase of tickets of IPL/movies for the agents and distributors. Such services also cannot be considered as input service for the purpose of availment of the Cenvat benefit. Thus, denial of Cenvat benefit amounting to ₹ 1,19,618/- is also in conformity with the statutory provisions. With regard to sponsorship of study on IFA s, the said service was availed by the appellant for the purpose of conducting its business activities during the period 2008-09 to 2010-11. Such services being availed in connection with the activities of business, the benefit of Cenvat credit should be available under the defini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same invoices The appellant submits that credit has not been availed twice and credit availed by the appellant pretends to different agreements enter into between the appellant and the service providers. I find that amount of service tax was paid by the service provider in respect of provision of different services. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant had availed service tax benefit twice on the basis of the said invoices. Hence, denial of such benefit is not proper and justified. 3. Cenvat credit for the subsequent month have been utilized towards payment of service tax liability of the preceding month. The appellant had availed the Cenvat credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
