COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH appeals one filed by the assessee and other filed by the Revenue are disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has allowed the Cenvat credit in respect of certain services and has disallowed in respect of certain services. Taking up the assessee's appeal, I find that the disputed services are as under:

(2.) As regards the first services, i.e., advertisement arid sponsorship services, the lower authorities have observed that appellant has advertised themselves as HCL, which is reflective of entire HCL group. As such, the Revenue contended that this is an advertisement for the entire group of HCL and benefit of Cenvat credit cannot be extended to the assessee, who is an exporter of software.

(3.) I find force in the above contention of the learned advocate. When the service tax for the services along with the consideration of such services stand paid by the assessee, it has to be held that advertisement services have been availed of by the assessee, in relation to his business activities in which case, Cenvat credit would be available. Apart from that I find force in the assessee's contention that there was no such allegation in the show -cause notice and as such, impugned order have travelled beyond the show -cause notice.