TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1310
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst the common Order-in-Original No. CHNSVTAX-002-COM-45 to 47/2016-17 dated 24.03.2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order"), whereby the Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Chennai denied CENVAT credit on telecast fees and confirmed the consequential demands of interest and penalties under Statement of Demand Nos. 04/2015, 61/2015 and 55/2016-C(ST-2) covering the periods October 2012 to December 2015. As the appeals arise from a common Order-in-Original involving an identical issue, they are heard together and disposed of by this common Final Order. 2. The appellant, engaged in production of television programmes and registered under the taxable categories of "TV or Radio Programme Production Service" and "Sale of Space or T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Chennai), 2018 (6) TMI 201 (CESTAT Chennai) and 2024 (2) TMI 88 (CESTAT Chennai), wherein it has consistently been held that telecast fees paid to television channels are directly relatable to the taxable output service of Sale of Space or Time for Advertisement and consequently qualify as input services eligible for CENVAT credit. The learned Counsel submitted that judicial discipline required the adjudicating authority to follow the earlier binding decisions in the appellant's own case instead of reiterating the same demands for subsequent periods. It was further argued that all the issues raised in the Synopsis, including the nexus between telecast fees and advertisement service, the interpretation of Rule 2(l), the maintainability ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Tribunal in the appellant's own case for the earlier period October 2007 to September 2010 arising out of Show Cause Notice dated 02.04.2012 and for the subsequent period October 2011 to September 2012 arising out of Statement of Demand No. 94/2013 dated 15.04.2013. By its decisions reported in 2018 (2) TMI 331 (CESTAT-Chennai), 2018 (6) TMI 201 (CESTAT-Chennai) and finally 2024 (2) TMI 88 (CESTAT-Chennai), this Tribunal consistently held that the telecast fees paid by the appellant constitute eligible input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and that the appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT credit thereon. For the sake of convenience, these earlier decisions on the same issue in the appellant's own cases are e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not supported by any legal basis. From the above, we conclude that the disallowance of input service credit is unjustified and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do." ii. In another Final Order No. 41705-41707/2018 dated 01.06.2018, the Tribunal Chennai has followed the above decision which reads as under: - "2. The appellant is registered under the category of "TV or Radio production Programme Service and Sale of Space or Time for Advertisement service". The appellant produced serials and assigned the copy right absolutely and permanently to various channels. The serials produced by the appellant were telecast through various channels. For this purpose, the appellant paid telecast fees to the TV channels to obtai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly follow the consistent decisions rendered by the coordinate Benches in the appellant's own case. 9. We may observe that the impugned Order-in-Original was passed on 24.03.2017, whereas the decision reported in 2024 (2) TMI 88 (CESTAT-Chennai) was rendered subsequently. The adjudicating authority, therefore, had no occasion to consider the said decision. However, the legal position now stands settled by the subsequent decisions of this Tribunal. Once the earlier Show Cause Notice and the subsequent Statement of Demand on the identical issue have been set aside, the present three Statements of Demand, which merely relate to the succeeding periods on the same facts and issue, have no independent basis to survive. Respectfully followin....