Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Commissionerate, Noida) APPEARANCE:

Shri Kapil Vaish, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Smt. Chitra Srivastava, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER NO.- 70138/2025 DATE OF HEARING : 02.01.2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.03.2025 The present appeal has been filed by M/s Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd., assailing the Order-in-Appeal No.NOI-EXCUS- 001-APP-681-2021-22 dated 27.09.2021 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Noida.

3. With regard to disallowance of Cenvat credit of Rs.15,35,053/-, The learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Appellant had taken Cenvat credit on input services, like Adobe reward scheme, cultural event, proforma invoices, lunch, double/excess credit, valuation of stocks, Adobe extra earning, incentive to partners etc; and that the Cenvat credit is allowed only on those input services, which are utilized for providing output services. In the instant case, the Appellant has failed to prove that these input services have any nexus with their output services. He therefore upheld the disallowance of credit of Rs.15,35,053/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the SCN had been signed by the Commissioner on 24.10.2011 and same has been dispatched on 24.10.2011 which means that the SCN was issued well within time. The learned Commissioner also upheld the imposition of equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 20042 to the extent of Cenvat credit disallowed.

(iv) Appellant are engaged in providing marketing of software products to Adobe, Ireland. It has to arrange seminars, awareness sessions, events, conferences etc to meet the potential customers face to face and make them aware of the new launches and latest updates on the existing products. The entire services involving Cenvat credit Rs.28,94,515/- pertain to such services. In this connection, the Appellant referred to the decision of the Tribunal in their own case as reported in 2015 (38) S.T.R. 998 (T) wherein it has been held that Appellant is an exporter of service and all the services fall in the exclusive clause of definition of input service.