TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome cases, the appellant could not recover certain payments from their customers and wrote them off as bad debts in their financial records. The appellant also entered into a co-brand credit card agreement dated 14.10.2005 with Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited ("IRCTC") to launch co-brand credit card. The appellant paid fixed charges to IRCTC for every subscriber of credit card and in turn IRCTC agreed to promote the credit card by modifying its website, through press advertisements and related collaterals. IRCTC raised invoices on the appellant for the said purpose and the appellant availed the cenvat credit of service tax paid thereon. 3. Two show cause notices were issued to the appellant for reversal of cenvat credit availed on input services attributable to the amount written off as irrecoverable dues; reversal of cenvat credit where service tax was paid under reverse charge basis; reversal of cenvat credit availed on advertisement, catering and event management services. Impugned orders were passed by confirming the demands holding that the amount written off as bad debts, the appellant is not entitled to avail cenvat credit of input services attribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Vodafone Cellular Ltd vs. CCE & ST - 2017 (10) TMI 973 CESTAT Bangalore. 4.4 He further submitted that with effect from 01.04.2011, the appellant was required to pay service tax at the time of providing the services and after 01.04.2011, whatever service provided by the appellant, the appellant has paid the service tax thereon on the basis of consideration received from the customers. Therefore, the demand for the period post 01.04.2011 is unsustainable. 4.5 He further submitted that the denial of cenvat credit availed on advertisement services received from IRCTC is incorrect as the adjudicating authority has held that the appellant has not furnished any proof of advertisement in nature of services received from IRCTC. However, the appellant provided the invoices raised by IRCTC and the Certificate dated 15.07.2014 issued by IRCTC clarified that the agreement was for new registration, renewal, redemption and transaction of co-brand credit cards. These documents clearly establish that IRCTC provides advertisement services by displaying appellant's credit cards on its website, advertisements etc and was accordingly receiving a con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Therefore, almost whole of the bad debts written off up to March 2012 would be covering the period on which payment of service tax was on receipt basis. 5.4 He further submitted that Rule 3(5C) of Cenvat Credit Rules prescribes reversal of cenvat credit on the goods on which remission of duty has been allowed under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Under the said Rule 21 remission is allowed only in cases where goods were destroyed due to causes beyond human control, meaning thereby that in remaining cases, the assessee would be liable to pay central excise duty even if the same has not yet been cleared as the duty is on manufacture. Under service tax, the tax was leviable on rendering of service but payable on receipt of consideration whether before or after or during rendering of the same. However, there was no provision for remission of service tax as there could normally be no situation of destruction of service, which is intangible in nature and accordingly, there was no specific provision for reversal of cenvat credit. The remission, so to speak, was suo moto, on non receipt of consideration, therefore, the reversal of cenvat credit is not marred by absence of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant has taken cenvat credit are 'input services' in terms of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and is a provider of output service. Therefore, in terms of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, we hold that the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on input services in question. Further, we hold that there is no such provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or in the Finance Act, 1994 for reversal of cenvat credit for the services provided for which no consideration for service provided is received by an assessee. Therefore, we hold that the appellant has correctly availed the cenvat credit on input services although the amount of non-recoverable taxable service has been written off by the appellant for the period prior to 01.04.2011. The appellant has admitted at bar that they have paid service tax on all the taxable services provided by them after 01.04.2011 at the time of provision of service. Therefore, if it is so, the appellant cannot be liable for reversal of cenvat credit for the services provided after 01.04.2011 on which the appellant has paid service tax. 7.2 With regard to denial of the cenvat credit on the invoices issued by IRCTC, we hav....