2017 (5) TMI 627

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....against the confirmation of demand of Rs. 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....so after discussing the judgment is the case of 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 contentiou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n to various persons is clearly a taxable service falling 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 an....