9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9/2017-SM - 22923-22928/2017 - Dated:- 27-11-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri R. Parthasarathy, Consultant Sarathy Associates, For the Appellant Ms. Kavitha Podwal, Superintendent(AR), For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS Garg These six appeals have been filed by the appellant against the common impugned order dt 07/06/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has denied the CENVAT credit on sole selling commission and rejected the appeals of the appellant Further the Commissioner(Appeals) has also reduced the penalties in two appeals, Since the issue in all the six appeals is common and the impugned order is also common, all the six appeals are being disposed of by this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty under Rule 15(1) was also imposed besides demanding interest under Rule 14. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who vide the impugned order has upheld the Order-in-Original but reduced the penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant has filed these six appeals. 3. Details of appeals are given below:- SCN dt. Period involved Amount involved (Sole Selling Agency Commission) 04/10/2013 10/2008 to 12/2012 Rs.26,121/- 13/01/2014 01/2013 to 09/2013 Rs.4,06,539/- 09/06/2014 10/2013 to 03/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to business but in the instance case the appellants were claiming service tax credit on sole selling commission under the expression sales promotion. He further submitted that in the appellant's case, the commission agent was not undertaking any trading of the goods manufactured by them and their activities are confined to sales promotion of products manufactured by the appellant and therefore the observation of the Hon'ble High Court in the Cadila Healthcare Ltd. are not applicable in the appellant's case rather the observation of the Hon'ble High Court would cover the issue in appellant's favour. He further submitted that the impugned order has one in totally mistaken understanding of the law that the credit of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that with regard to the same input service, the Commissioner(Appeals) has allowed the CENVAT credit vide its order No.133/2016 dt. 25/11/2016 and No.121/2016 dt. 53. Learned consultant further submitted that as per the agreement between the appellant and its sole selling agent, it is categorically made clear that the sole agents will only be entitled to the commission on the basis of the sale effected through theme 6. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 7. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and evidence on record and after going through various decisions cited supra, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
