9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this case. Job workers are not responsible for the marketing or sales of the goods, that has to be looked after by the appellants only. Hence input services like sales commission etc. are very much eligible input services in terms of Rule 2(l) of CCR during the period under dispute - there cannot be any denial of input service credits availed by the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u Venkataraman made oral and written submissions which can be broadly summarized as under : (i) The appellant gets orders from their customers to execute project on Turnkey basis. To get these orders, they employ the services of certain persons who facilitate the receiving of the order. As per the agreement, these service providers will continue to work for the interest of the appellant till the successful commissioning of the plant and in co-ordinating with the customers by getting all the requisite clearances, including securing of all payments due to appellant as per the terms of contract to be entered with the said customers. For these services, there was an agreement to pay a commission to the service providers, which is normally a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, 2004. (v) Since the appellant are recipient of the services and is engaged in the manufacture of goods for payment of duty and the rendition of services is integrally connected to both manufacture and the business activity of the company, and therefore the availment of credit is in order. (vi) All services which are rendered for the furtherance of the appellants business are eligible input services as per the inclusive part of the definition. Their business if not restricted to manufacturing activities alone as their process of business come to an end only when goods manufactured reached their customers premises. (vii) The business of the appellant cannot be carried out effectively without the service of commission agent for pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture. Based on these arguments, Ld. A.R supports the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. There is no dispute that the goods manufactured by the job workers are done only on the basis of design and drawings provided by the appellants and they are manufactured on their behalf. There is also no allegation in the SCNs that the goods sent out directly from such job worker are not being sent out on behalf of appellants and not on behalf of job worker themselves. SCN in para-3 indicates that these goods have been supplied on the basis of contracts for supply sugar machinery procured by them. For procuring such orders and also for other business activities, they have appointed a commission agent to whom they pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
