Case Law Details
Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST Vs Trinetra Cement Limited (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that denial of CENVAT credit of ‘event management services’ merely because invoice didn’t mention what event was being organized is unjustified.
Facts- The appellant submits that the Event Management services were availed in relation to events such as annual award and other functions organized for its dealers based on their sales performance. Such awards, incentivize and improve sales performance. Learned Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground that the invoices do not mention any event and this was because the event manager does not give the details of the event and therefore, the claim of the appellant cannot be rejected on this ground.
Further, the appellant submits that the CENVAT credit on mandap keeper services was availed for the hotels and restaurant services for the functions and programmes held for dealers and customers and hence they fall under the definition of ‘sales promotion‘ and ‘market research‘. Therefore, credit should be allowed. The Commissioner wrongly denied the CENVAT credit on the ground that one of the bills under this head is for food charges for 11 persons and it is not clear whether any business meet was held or not.
Conclusion- Held that when one hires a service provider, he may not always indicate in detail the programme which is being organized. Instead, he indicates the services which he provided and the name of the client. In our considered view, the services rendered towards the annual awards or other programmes for the dealers have a direct nexus to sales promotion and CENVAT credit is admissible on such services. Accordingly, we allow CENVAT credit of Rs. 34,800/- availed by the appellant on these services.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
