2018 (9) TMI 1431 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - services of Commission Agents to develop its market and promote sales - Held that - The Tribunal has been consistently allowing the Cenvat Credit under similar circumstances - In the appellant s own case M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. AND M/S JAQUAR AND COMPANY PVT LTD. VERSUS CCE & ST, ALWAR 2017 (12) TMI 891 - CESTAT NEW DELHI Cenvat Credit has been allowed by holding that CBEC vide Circular No. 943/4/2011-CX. Dated 29/04/2011 has clarified that Cenvat credit is admissible on the services of the sale of the dutiable goods on commission basis - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal allowing Cenvat Credit on services of Commission Agents under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The appeal filed by Revenue challenged the Order-in-Appeal allowing Cenvat Credit to the respondent for the period of April, 2015 to Sept., 2015, related to services of Commission Agents. The dispute arose when the Original Authority denied the Cenvat Credit based on a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. However, subsequent legal developments, including a Circular by CBEC and Notification No. 2/2016-CE(NT), clarified the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on services of sale of goods on commission basis. The Tribunal consistently allowed Cenvat Credit in similar circumstances, citing relevant Circulars and Notifications. The Tribunal referred to its own previous decisions and the decisions of other High Courts to support the admissibility of Cenvat Credit in such cases.

The Ld. AR for Revenue argued that the appellate authority wrongly considered the amendment carried out by Notification No. 2/2016-CE(NT) to have retrospective effect, which was not explicitly stated in the notification. However, the Tribunal found that the legal developments and consistent decisions supported the admissibility of Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal specifically cited Circulars and Notifications endorsing the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on services of sale of goods on commission basis. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order based on its previous decisions and the legal developments on the subject.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by Revenue, upholding the Order-in-Appeal that allowed the Cenvat Credit to the respondent for services of Commission Agents. The decision was based on the legal developments, Circulars, Notifications, and consistent Tribunal decisions supporting the admissibility of Cenvat Credit in such cases. The Tribunal's decision was in line with its previous orders and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and notifications.