9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CCR, 2004. Sales promotion expressly figure in the inclusion part of the definition. It is not even the Revenue's case that the appellant was not paying commission for sales promotion. Where a particular activity is expressly mentioned in the inclusion part of the definition, one need not bother to examine whether it has satisfied the ingredients of the main part of the definition as decided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that the service of the commission agent was for the activities of selling the goods of the assessee and not in relation to manufacture and clearance of the goods from the place of removal. 2. In the present appeal, the case of the assessee on merits is that, as sales promotion is a part of the very definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copies of the relevant returns, which were submitted along with the reply to the show-cause notice, clearly indicated the factum of CENVAT credit having not been availed on sales commission. Therefore, the learned counsel submits, the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to avail undue benefit of CENVAT credit is baseless and, therefore, the extended period of limitation is not invocable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel has also relied on Commissioner vs. Ambika Overseas [2012 (278) E.L.T. 524 (Tri.-Del.)]. She has also referred to Paragraphs 27 78 of the jundgement in the case of Commissioner vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (Bom.)]. 4. The learned Superintendent (AR) has endeavoured to justify the appellate Commissioner s view but has not been able to cite any supporting decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the assessee s own case vide Order-in-Appeal No. 36/2012-CE dated 16.2.2012. Nobody has claimed before me that the said Order-in-Appeal was appealed against. Apparently, it was accepted by the department, being in keeping with the Board s clarification and the definition of input service. The Tribunal s decision in the case of Ambika Overseas (supra) is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
