CESTAT disallows CENVAT credit of advertisement services availed, as not amounting to “input services” for rendition of output services of promotion and marketing of IMFL of United Spirits Ltd; Notes that expenditure was incurred for advertisement of other products of the company such as soda, and same could not be considered as advertisement of alcoholic beverages of same company;
Rejects assessee’s contention that such advertisement services were eligible for CENVAT credit inasmuch as promotional activities focused on brand of the company and such brand promotion directly helped in increasing sale of liquor; Remarks, “such an attempt is to be considered as subversion of the spirit of the law which prohibits advertisement of alcohol”; Distinguishes Bombay HC decision in Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. while upholding invocation of extended limitation period, states that such advertisements were consciously made without showing liquor thereby circumventing the ban on advertisement for IMFL products, which amounted not only to suppression of facts but also bordered on fraud : Delhi CESTAT
Citation : TS-193-CESTAT-2018-ST