2018 (7) TMI 702

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for kids and students in the field of painting and quiz competition etc. They had received sponsorship from various sponsors for conducting the above programme and collected service tax for the sponsorship services provided by them. It appeared that in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(viii) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the recipient of sponsorship service is to discharge the service tax liability. The appellant has thus wrongly collected the service tax on sponsorship service and paid the same to the Central Government. The department was of the view that appellant being not eligible to pay service tax for sponsorship services, the input service availed for providing output service namely sponsorship service is not eligible for credit. Show cause notic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and the same analogy shall be applied to the facts of the present case. He relied upon the decision in the case of Vinayak Industries reported in 2003 (159) ELT 456. It is also pointed out by him that the department has not issued any show cause notice to the service recipient of the sponsorship services and the service tax on such services has been discharged by the appellant. The ld. counsel vehemently argued on the ground of limitation and submitted that the appellant had reflected all these details in their ST-3 returns which is admitted by the department in para 3.15 of the adjudication order. The period involved is from 2006 -07 to September 2009 whereas the show cause notice has been issued only on 14.10.2011, much after the normal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ulative way to evade payment of service tax and utilization of inadmissible CENVAT credit by showing available credit which should not have been available to the appellant. Therefore, the extended period has been correctly invoked which is legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The demand arises out of the basic allegation that the appellant has wrongly paid the service tax on sponsorship service when actually service recipient ought to have paid. For the same reason, the department alleges that for various input services like mandap keeper service, interior decorator service etc. consumed by the appellant used for the purpose of providing sponsorship service is not eligible for credit. The department has no case that the appellant has....