TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 in order-in-original no.48/ST-II/WLH/2012 dated 30^th March 2012 of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai - II. The appellant is in the business of providing a number of services relating to broadcasting, event management, online information and database, intellectual property rights, maintenance and repair, renting of immovable property, sale of space and time for advertisement and management consultancy and avail CENVAT credit on a number of input services. Recovery was ordered on the ground that appellant, while providing 'broadcasting service' with effect from the 1^st July 2001 had failed to maintain separate records for taxable and exempted services even though the services provided in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant, it is contended that rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, '6. Obligation of manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods and provider of taxable and exempted services. - xxxxx (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2), the manufacturer or the provider of output service, opting not to maintain separate accounts, shall follow either of the following conditions, as applicable to him, namely :- (a) if the exempted goods are- Xxxxxx' the manufacturer shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to inputs and input services used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of such final products at the time of their clearance from the factory; or (b) if t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad [2010 (17) STR 433 (Tri-Bang)] on the ground that disposal of stay application expresses merely a prima facie view. On behalf of appellant, the final decision in ECIL Rapiscan Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Hyderabad - I [2013-TIOL-1976-CESTAT-Bang] was cited. Relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kanunga Industries [2004 (178) ELT 19 (SC)], the appellant further contends that the taxation statutes have to be construed strictly and benefit of doubt, if any, has to accrue to the assessee. 4. It is contended that there has been no willful misrepresentation or attempt to evade tax and, hence, invoking of the extended period, as w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ond the limits prescribed under the Rules for payment of service tax on taxable service unless they maintained separate accounts in respect of inputs/input services used for providing output services in accordance with provisions of CCR. The relevant provisions of Rule 6 of CCR have been extracted and we are not doing this because only two aspects required to be noted are maintaining of separate accounts and limit for utilization of Cenvat credit. There is no dispute about the quantification.' 6. Reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Mercedes-Benz India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - I [2016 (41) STR 577 (Bom)] to sustain the findings of the original authority. 7. It is appropri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vices rendered in the rest of India could have been achieved by isolating a portion of the inputs/input services as attributable to services rendered in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In such a situation, there is no logic or soundness to hold that the inputs/input services used for rendering 'broadcasting service' should be restricted to such as evidenced to have been used for rendering service in the rest of India. In these circumstances the availment the CENVAT credit to the full extent cannot be questioned. It's utilisation thereof cannot also be restricted. 9. If the output service were to be distinctly identifiable as one which is exempt (other than territorially) in contradistinction with a taxable service and if the ....