2019 (8) TMI 319 - HC - Central Excise

Utilization of CENVAT credit - Whether the assessee is eligible to utilize the CENVAT Credit availed on input services viz. Telephone, Courier etc. towards payment of service tax on 'agency commission' falling under the category of services namely 'insurance auxiliary services' which is not an output service? - HELD THAT - We adjourn the hearing of these two appeals by a week. We make it clear that on the next occasion if the Revenue is not represented to prosecute its Central Excise Appeal No.225 of 2014, we will be inclined to dismiss the Revenue's appeal. Stand over to 7th August, 2019.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of the assessee to utilize CENVAT Credit on input services for payment of service tax on 'agency commission'
2. Admission of Revenue's appeal in Central Excise Appeal No.225 of 2014
3. Previous decisions favoring the respondent regarding similar issues
4. Representation of the Revenue in the appeals

Analysis:
1. The main issue in the judgment revolves around the eligibility of the assessee to use CENVAT Credit for paying service tax on 'agency commission' falling under 'insurance auxiliary services.' The court noted the question of law raised by the Revenue regarding this matter. The respondent pointed out that similar issues have been decided in their favor by various courts, including the Gujarat High Court, Punjab and Haryana Tribunal, Delhi High Court, and previous decisions of the Bombay High Court. The court adjourned the matter to consider it along with another appeal.

2. The judgment also addresses the admission of the Revenue's appeal in Central Excise Appeal No.225 of 2014 concerning the same assessee. The respondent highlighted that subsequent decisions by various courts have favored them on the same issue. The court considered these precedents and adjourned the hearing to allow proper representation by the Revenue in both appeals.

3. The court emphasized the importance of proper representation by the Revenue in both Central Excise Appeal No.110 of 2019 and No.225 of 2014. The appellant's counsel raised concerns about being briefed only in one appeal and not the other. The court adjourned the hearing to ensure fair representation and warned that failure to appear may lead to dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

4. Parties were informed that both appeals are likely to be disposed of finally on the next date, urging the Revenue to ensure representation for a fair hearing. The judgment highlights the need for proper advocacy and representation to address the complex legal issues raised in the appeals. The court scheduled the next hearing for further proceedings on the matters at hand.