TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tilised, continues in the account for all time to come. Eligibility for credit of tax, included in the invoices raised by M/s Tata Sons Ltd on the appellant, is not in dispute. It also does not require to be stated that it is only with the advent of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 that significance was attached to time for eligibility to take credit and that, prior to its notification, service was deemed to have been rendered only upon payment - Surprisingly, too, the assessee has also merely cited legal precedent without offering any justification for the delay in availing credit that, notwithstanding the position in law, devolves upon the assessee. In the absence of justification for rendering a finding of liability that does not take in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20th June 2011 for ₹ 107,28,83,250 on them, towards charges for using the TATA brand liable to tax in the hands of the latter for having rendered taxable service under section 65(105)(zzr) of Finance Act, 1994, of intellectual property service as defined in section 65 (55b) of Finance Act, 1994 only in June 2012 as reflected in the returns filed by them. The payment under Brand Equity Promotion Agreement was charged as subscription at the rate of 0.25% of the annual income of the appellant for each year. Also, admittedly, the appellant had been providing both taxable and exempt services during the impugned period which, by special dispensation of rule 6 (5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 that was since rescinded with effect from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Neon News Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Agra [2018(9)TMI 1516-CESTAT, Allahabad] and of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd [1999 (112) ELT 353 (SC)]. 4. Before adverting to the response of Learned Authorised Representative, there are two aspects that we would prefer to get on record at this stage. As contended by Learned Counsel, the adjudicating authority had discarded the relevance of rule 6(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 insofar as the impugned proceedings were concerned. There is no appeal, or memorandum of crossobjection in response, by the respondent-Commissioner of GST Central Excise on this finding and, not surprisingly, as that ground in the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of courier charges. The services are not directly concerned with provision of output services produced by the assessee nor will they fall under the input services covered in Rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Hence the contention is in the Show Cause Notice to the effect that input tax credit amounting to Rs. 57, 38, 354 was availed improperly and merits reversal sustain. is not responsible disposal of allegation in show cause notice through adjudication order and, certainly, warrants appropriate handling. 6. Doubtlessly, rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 is devoid of any time limit for availment of credit. There is also, no doubt, that credit availed, and unutilised, continues in the account for all time to come. Eligibi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
