9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 386 - AT - Central ExcisePrinciples of Res-Subjudice - CENVAT Credit - input services - service of Sales Commission - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - As regard the merit of the case, whether the assessee is eligible to avail the Cenvat credit on Sales Commission the issue is pending before the Hon ble jurisdictional High court of Gujarat in the case of commissioner Vs. Essar Steel Ltd 2016 (6) TMI 1305 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . Therefore, the merit of the case cannot be taken up. Whether the demand for extended period is sustainable or the same was rightly set aside by the learned commissioner? - HELD THAT - The period involved in the present case is April-2010 to March-2014. During this period, there was no dispute about admissibility of the Cenvat Credit on Sales Commission to the assessee. The Revenue has heavily relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III 2009 (8) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT which was on general principle of Cenvat Credit Rules. Whereas, the specific issue of availment of Cenvat Credit on Sales Commission has been decided in various judgments. The judgments dealing with the specific issue will prevail over the judgment in respect of general principle of the Cenvat Credit Rules - there are no mala fide on the part of the respondent. Therefore the Adjudicating Authority s order setting aside the demand of Cenvat credit on Sales Commission exclusively on the ground of time bar is not found any fault. Therefore, the extended period was not invokable for the demand beyond the normal period. There are no infirmity in the impugned order setting aside the demand on the ground of time bar, therefore impugned order to the extent it set aside the demand on time bar is upheld - Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
Issues involved:
The issue involved in the present case is whether the respondent is entitled to Cenvat credit for the service of Sales Commission and whether the demand for the extended period was rightly set aside by the Adjudicating Authority. Issue 1: Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on Sales Commission: The Revenue contended that the appellant was not entitled to Cenvat credit on Sales Commission based on previous judgments. It was argued that the appellant did not disclose the fact of availing such credit, indicating a suppression of fact. The Revenue sought confirmation of the demand for the extended period. Issue 1 Summary: The Revenue argued against the eligibility of Cenvat credit on Sales Commission, citing past judgments and alleging suppression of fact by the appellant. Issue 2: Legal Entitlement based on Previous Judgments: The respondent, on the other hand, argued in favor of their entitlement to Cenvat credit on Sales Commission, referring to a series of judgments supporting their position. They contended that no mala fide intent could be attributed to their actions. Issue 2 Summary: The respondent defended their entitlement to Cenvat credit on Sales Commission, citing various judgments and denying any mala fide intent. Judgement Summary: Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the issue of the appellant's eligibility for Cenvat credit on Sales Commission was pending before the High Court of Gujarat. Therefore, the Tribunal focused on determining the sustainability of the demand for the extended period. During the period in question, there was no dispute regarding the admissibility of Cenvat credit on Sales Commission to the assessee, as evidenced by relevant judgments. The Tribunal highlighted specific cases where Cenvat credit on Sales Commission was allowed, emphasizing the precedence set by these judgments. In light of the established legal precedent supporting the admissibility of Cenvat credit on Sales Commission during the relevant period, the Tribunal concluded that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the respondent. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to set aside the demand on the grounds of time bar, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the decision to set aside the demand for Cenvat credit on Sales Commission based on the time bar. *( Pronounced in the open court on 22.12.2023 )*
|
