9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 349 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input service or not - Service Tax paid under the head Business Auxiliary Service for sales commission paid to their commission agents - credit has been denied alleging that sales agents are directly concerned with sales rather than sales promotion - period September, 2008 to April, 2013 - HELD THAT - The issue under dispute in this appeal was analysed in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA VERSUS AMBIKA OVERSEAS 2011 (7) TMI 980 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT , where it was held that l earned counsel for the revenue was unable to justify that the claim of cenvat credit by the assessee was erroneous in any manner - Following the said final Order, we are of the considered opinion that the demand cannot sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit for Service Tax paid under 'Business Auxiliary Service' for sales commission. 2. Interpretation of whether sales agents' services qualify as input service for Cenvat Credit. Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of Cenvat Credit for Service Tax paid under 'Business Auxiliary Service' for sales commission. The appellants, manufacturers of 'Gear cutting tools, Broaches, Measuring Equipment,' availed the credit, which was challenged by the department. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to deny credit, recover the amount with interest, and impose penalties for the period September 2008 to April 2013. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and penalties, leading to the appeal. 2. The appellant argued that the services provided by commission agents for the sale of goods were related to the manufacturing activity and thus eligible for credit. They cited precedents where similar issues were decided in their favor. The department contended that sales agents were not involved in sales promotion, challenging the eligibility of the credit. The Tribunal analyzed the issue in detail, referring to their own previous case and a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Based on these precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for denying credit could not be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential reliefs as per law.
|
