M\/s. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai North Commissionerate
Service Tax
2018 (7) TMI 702 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 2-7-2018
ST\/Misc. \/40867\/2017 and ST\/40543\/2017 – Final Order No. 41939\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nShri T.R. Ramesh, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellants is a publisher of newspapers 'The Hindu, Business Line' and magazines such as 'Front Line' and 'Sports Star' and also engaged in providing various other services. During the course of audit, it was observed that the appellant had conducted various competitive programmes 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<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n or decorator service, quiz master service etc. were availed for conducting events such as quiz competition, painting competition etc. The appellant had provided sponsorship services for conducting all these events. By mistake, the appellant had collected the service tax in respect of sponsorship service but had remitted the same to the Central Government. The department now alleges that the input services availed for providing the sponsorship services are not eligible for credit. Merely because the appellant had wrongly discharged the service tax on sponsorship services instead of the service recipient, the input services cannot be held to be ineligible for credit. Since the sponsorship services are taxable services, for which the input services were used by the appellant, the department has wrongly denied the credit. He submitted that there are several decision which have held that even though the process does not amount to manufacture, the credit availed on the inputs cannot be denie<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ent of service tax. At the most, it was only an erroneous payment of service tax on the part of the appellant. Instead of the service tax being discharged by the service recipient in the case of sponsorship services, the appellant discharged the service tax by collecting the same from the service recipient. The input services were used for the output services and therefore the credit availed is eligible. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s not paid the service tax on these input services nor is there a case that they are not used for providing sponsorship service. The only allegation is that the appellant ought not to have collected the service tax on sponsorship service. Generally, it is the output service provider who has to pay the service tax and in some cases like sponsorship services, the Service Tax Rules provide that the liability to pay service tax is upon the service recipient. Appellant has collected service tax wrongly from service recipient and paid to Central Government instead of the service recipient paying it directly to Central Government for sponsorship services. For the mere same reason, it is alleged that the credit has been wrongly availed on various input services used for providing sponsorship services. In para 3.15 of the adjudication order, it is brought out that the appellant has declared the credit of service tax paid on input services in their ST-3 returns. Thus, the credit availed as well <\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai North CommissionerateService Tax2018 (7) TMI 702 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 2-7-2018ST\/Misc. \/40867\/2017 and ST\/40543\/2017 – Final Order No. 41939\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri T.R. Ramesh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR) … Continue reading “M\/s. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai North Commissionerate”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12579","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12579","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12579"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12579\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12579"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12579"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12579"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld. AR Shri R.Subramaniam supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax on sponsorship services. The service recipient ought to have paid the same. The appellant has wrongly collected the service tax on sponsorship services and utilized the credit on various input services to discharge the payment of service on sponsorship service. Thus, the input services used for providing the output service namely sponsorship services are not eligible for credit. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jaipur I<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n