9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) read with Section 11A(1) of the Act and also imposed penalties. Since the issue involved in all the five appeals is identical and there is a common impugned order, therefore, all the five appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of all the five appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. Period Involved CENVAT credit demanded Penalty imposed E/21375/2018 January - July 2013 Rs.32,72,273/- Rs.33,000/- E/21376/2018 August 2013 to April 2014 Rs.35,72,384/- Rs.36,000/- E/21377/2018 May to December 2014 Rs.35,93,828/- Rs.36,000/- E/21378/2018 January to September 2015 Rs.38,34,961/- Rs.40,000/- E/21381/2018 October 2015 to February 2016 Rs.20,65,770/- Rs.21,000/- 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand as stated in the table along with penalties. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the appellants have appointed FMGIL as the 'Sole Selling Agent' for marketing and promoting the products of the appellant which is covered under the inclusive part of the definition of 'input service' as defined under Rule 2(l) of CCR. He also referred to the terms of the agreement and as per the agreement, the duties of FMGIL includes promotion and marketing of the products of the appellant, seeking orders, assistance in sale of pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re and sale of goods. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * Board Circular No.943/04/2011-CX dt.29.4.2011 * Wadpack Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore: 2013 (293) ELT 400 (Tri.-Bang.) * CCE, Ludhiana vs. Ambika Overseas: 2012 (25) STR 348 (P&H) 4.2 Further, he also submitted that the Board Circular NO.96/85/2015-CX dt.7.12.2015 has clarified that the decision in the case of M/s. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. reported in 2013 (30) STR 3 (Guj.) applies in the case where the agent is undertaking only sales and no sales promotion whereas in the present case, it is clearly evident from the Clause 3 of the Agreement that FMGIL undertakes the activity of sales promotion and therefore, the decision in the case of M/s. Cadila H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
