9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HI], where reliance placed in the case of M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Udaipur [2017 (12) TMI 426 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that CBEC vide Circular No.943/4/2011-CX. Dated 29/04/2011 has clarified that CENVAT credit is admissible on the services of the sale of the dutiable goods on commission basis - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Ex. Appeal Nos.50413, 50414, 50438, 50444, 50448, 50449, 50451, 50427, 50491, 50579, 50590, 50593, 50594, 50595, 50596 of 2018 - Final Order Nos. 51412 – 51426/2018 - Dated:- 16-4-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Justice ( Dr. ) Satish Chandra, President And Hon ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member ( Technical ) Ms. Surbhi Sinha, Sh. Jitin Singhal, Sh, Madhusudan Sharma, Sh. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. CCE ST, Jaipur-I (Final Order No. 57218/2017 dt. 10.10.2017) where it was observed that- After hearing both the parties, we note that identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd. vs. CCE, Udaipur. The Tribunal vide final order No. 56683-56685/2017 dt. 28.08.2017 held as under:- 4. With regard to availment of Cenvat credit on the commission paid for sale promotion activities, the CBEC vide Circular No. 943/4/2011-CX dt. 29.04.2011 has clarified that Cenvat credit is admissible on the services of the sale of the dutiable goods on commission basis. The said circular was endorsed by the Central Government vide Notification No. 2/2016-CE ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Further, by inserting the Explanation in the Rule 2(l), it has confirmed the Board Circular and resolved the different views of the High Courts. Taking into circumstances under which the Explanation was inserted in Rule 2(l) of Rules, 2004 and consequences of the Explanation to extend the benefit to the assessee as per Board Circular, we hold that the Explanation inserted in Rule 2(l) of Rules, 2004 by Notification No. 2/2016-CX (N.T.) (supra) should be declaratory in nature and effective retrospectively . 5. In view of the above settled position and law, we do not find any merits in the impugned orders. Accordingly, after setting aside the same, we allow the appeals in favour of the appellants . 6. By following our earlier or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
