9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to an inference that the higher commission (than the commission received by the appellant) was paid to sub-brokers in respect of goods other than the goods for which it received commission from its clients. Therefore, the Cenvat credit is allowed. - Decided in favour of appellant - Appeal No. ST/1137/2011-CU[SM] - FINAL ORDER NOS. 50222/2016 - Dated:- 28-1-2016 - R K Singh, Member (T) For the Appellant : Ms Aastha Gupta, Adv For the Respondent : Ms Reena Khair, Adv ORDER Per R K Singh The appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 07.04.2011, in terms of which CENVAT credit on input services amounting to ₹ 16,41,448/- for the period from April, 2007 to October, 2008 was disallowed and ordered to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered commission at the higher rates from its clients, (iii) The observation in para 5.2 of the impugned order that it received commission from M/s. Mahalaxmi Steel Industries and M/s. G.P. Gloval Industries Pvt. Ltd. is incorrect because they were the sub-brokers to whom the commission was paid by it. Ld. advocate also drew my attention to the agreements entered into by the applicant with various sub-brokers wherein as per some agreements (for example the agreement entered into with M/s. Pawan Industries) the rate was to be decided at the time of sale, depending on the size, quality and type of material after mutual consultation. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand referred to the cross objections filed by Revenue, where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid. The fact that in some cases, commission paid was higher than the commission received by the appellant may at best raise some suspicion about the same being in respect of certain goods which were not the same on which it received commission, but there is no evidence to elevate such suspicion to a level to come to an inference that the higher commission (than the commission received by the appellant) was paid to sub-brokers in respect of goods other than the goods for which it received commission from its clients. 6. In the light of the foregoing analysis, I am of the view that the disallowance of CENVAT credit by the lower authorities is not based any sustainable grounds and therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained and is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
