AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dh Enterprises, appellant was appointed as agent for marketing and sales promotion of products of the company M/s United Spirits Limited. For the above activity, appellant entered into an agency agreement with M/s United Spirits Limited wherein it has been inter-alia agreed that :- (a) assessee will assist in procuring orders from the potential/existing customers of the IMFL products manufactured and marketed by the company (hereafter "the company's products"). The company will supply products directly in accordance with the purchase of such identified customers. (b) assessee shall assist the company in conducting promotional activities including hoarding, road shows, print and electronic media, wall painting of promotiona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omoting the products of United Spirits Limited on the ground that the advertisements were inputs for the output service of promoting/marketing the products of the company. The reason for the disallowance is that the advertisement undertaken were not for sales promotion of liquor but for other products of the same brand. Hence, the Adjudicating Authority took the view that service tax paid on such advertisement services cannot be considered as input services for the output service of promoting the liquor produced by United Spirits Limited. Appellant challenges this order. 4. In this connection, we heard Shri A.K. Batra, learned CA and Ms. Vibha Narang, learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant as well as Shri Sanjay Jain and Shri Amresh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2009 (15) S.T.R. 657 (Bom.) ; (b) Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, PUne - III - 2015 (38) S.T.R. 695 (Tri. - Mumbai) ; (c) HCL Technologies Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida - 2015 (8) TMI 595 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and (d) CCE, Noida vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. - 2016 (42) S.T.R. 48 (Tri. - Del.). 6. The learned DR justified the order. He argued that advertisement services cannot be considered as input services since such advertisement has no nexus with the output service rendered by the appellant for United Spirits Limited. The consideration received by the appellant is on the basis of cases of liquor promoted and marketed by it. He specifically has drawn our attention to the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in the impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....motional activities focus on brand of the company, and such brand promotion directly helps in increasing the sale of the liquor by the company, such advertisement services will qualify as input services under Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. After perusal of the definition of input service in Rule 2 (l) during the period relevant to the dispute, we are not convinced. The input service in the form of advertisement cannot be considered as used for providing the output taxable service of promotion or marketing for the simple reason that the output service is for promoting the IMFL produced by M/s United Spirits Limited, but the advertisement expenditure was incurred for advertisement of other products, such as, soda and not liquor ....