9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice Tax paid by Commission Agents under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Original Authority took a view that the respondent will not be entitled to such Cenvat Credit, but the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order allowed such Cenvat Credit. Revenue has challenged the order in the present appeal proceedings. 2. Heard Shri P. R. Gupta, Ld. AR for the Revenue as well as Shri Shantanu, Ld. Advocate for the respondent. 3. Ld. AR submitted that in similar circumstances, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal has followed the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Cadila Healthcare and held that cenvat credit is not admissible. The said decision of the Tribunal reported as 2013 (31) STR 459 (Tri. Ahd.) has been challenged before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted in 2017 (12) TMI 891-CESTAT, New Delhi Cenvat Credit has been allowed with the following observations by the Tribunal. "5. We note that the similar dispute came before the Tribunal in case of Mangalam Cement Ltd. & Ors. The Tribunal vide Final Order Nos.56683-56885 dated 28.08.2017 examined the issue along with the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Tribunal observed as below:- "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. Dated 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at credit on sales promotion service by way of sale of dutiable E/54289/2015 E/52700/2016 5 goods on commission basis. 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 consequence 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". 6. By following the earlier order of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case, I find no merit in the appeal filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
